[speechlesstx]

Who needs a congress? King Obama is reportedly working on gun control "under the radar" by way of executive order or regulatory means.

WaPo did a story on White House gun control czar Steve Crowley which had this little tidbit that just almost escaped notice.

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."

I'm sure that is "under the radar" in the most transparent way possible.

The Huffpo article lends credence to the idea that he is looking for ways to bypass congress on gun control.

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.

He doesn't know the meaning of the word hostile yet.

[tomder55]

Don't knock it . How could the people of California feel safe with all those court ordered releasees if there weren't strict gun control in the State ?

Crowley wrote a book called 'Regulation and Public Interests: The Possibility of Good Regulatory Government '. In it he made the case for the regulatory bureaucracy being the best government because the agencies, because of their autonomy ,are able to resist the demands of special interests and regulate on behalf of the public.. and I guess the lawmakers as the direct representatives of the electorate are not. It would make sense then that the imperial executive would hire this unaccountable czar for the purpose described... to by pass the Constitutional role of the legislature.
Of course he fails to recognize the influence of special interests he likes ,like the Brady Campaign.He also forgets the revolving door between government and industry. Oh yes ,his precious regulatory agencies are not immune.

[speechlesstx]

Crowley wrote a book called 'Regulation and Public Interests: The Possibility of Good Regulatory Government '.

Somehow I just can't find the connection he's trying to make there.

[TUT317]

Somehow I just can't find the connection he's trying to make there.

I have not read the book but my guess would be that he is saying not every government decision should be subject to a public, 'show of hands'.

In modern democratic theory direct participation by the public is considered impractical. In other words, the public cannot vote away a government decision because the majority of citizens take a dislike to it at the time. There are other ways the public can display there displeasure.

The other aspect is the problem of the general public being 'knowledgeable', when it comes to complex legislation. For example, the taxation legislation is implemented by the relevant agencies without fear or favour ( in theory ). Unlike politicians, a bureaucrat is not influenced by public opinion. If a particular part of tax legislation is unpopular then it will probably go ahead anyway. Direct democracy is an interesting idea, but would be largely unworkable in a complex society.

I would say Crowley is pointing out what he sees as the obvious; good government is effective government. I would need to read his book, but this is my guess.

Tut

[cdad]

This will be the straw breaking Obama's back if he tries to push through things against the 2nd amendment. Its sad that our government think the great unwashed can't think for themselves except when it comes to casting a vote.

The 2nd amendment is the only one protecting the rest of the amendments. And if they think that keeping guns from people that shouldn't have them is a good idea then they should start with the ATF for allowing sales of guns to Mexican drug lords.

True gun control is having the ability to hit your target the first time!!

[Synnen]

I don't even HAVE a gun.

But I'll go get SEVERAL if they're thinking they can take away my second amendment rights.

What are they trying to do? Make it so that ONLY criminals have guns?

[TUT317]

This will be the straw breaking Obama's back if he tries to push through things against the 2nd amendment. Its sad that our government think the great unwashed can't think for themselves except when it comes to casting a vote.

The 2nd amendment is the only one protecting the rest of the amendments. And if they think that keeping guns from people that shouldnt have them is a good idea then they should start with the ATF for allowing sales of guns to Mexican drug lords.

True gun control is having the ability to hit your target the first time !!!

My guess is that this will have nothing to do with any new legislation. Rather it will use legislation that already exists.

For example, tax legislation would already exist to stop people from performing professional services and not claim it is part of their income. Some people would call this 'cash in hand'. No doubt the taxation agencies have a certain amount of resources to make sure people are discouraged when it comes to this practice. It is impractical, in terms of allocations of resources to police this on the ground. Policing this on the ground would probably stop it, but far too expensive. The cheaper alternative is to wait for income statements to be filed.

It would be easy to see that in order to achieve a political end the government could allocate its resources to stop this practice almost before it begins. One could also see how this could work with gun control. You use the existing legislation and fund that particular aspect of the legislation you think would be most effective in limiting the amount of guns available. Perhaps we could call it, 'the hurdles you have to jump in order to own a gun factor".

As I said before this is my guess as to what they have in mind.

Tut

[cdad]

My guess is that this will have nothing to do with any new legislation. Rather it will use legislation that already exists.

For example, tax legislation would already exist to stop people from performing professional services and not claim it is part of their income. Some people would call this 'cash in hand'. No doubt the taxation agencies have a certain amount of resources to make sure people are discouraged when it comes to this practice. It is impractical, in terms of allocations of resources to police this on the ground. Policing this on the ground would probably stop it, but far too expensive. The cheaper alternative is to wait for income statements to be filed.

It would be easy to see that in order to achieve a political end the government could allocate its resources to stop this practice almost before it begins. One could also see how this could work with gun control. You use the existing legislation and fund that particular aspect of the legislation you think would be most effective in limiting the amount of guns available. Perhaps we could call it, 'the hurdles you have to jump in order to own a gun factor".

As I said before this is my guess as to what they have in mind.

Tut

I believe what they have in mind is a chipping away of the lawful ownership of a gun. Starting with magazine capacity. Then working deeper. Like a gun lottery for ownership. They want to make it so hard to get the ordinary citizen doesn't want to hassle with it yet the criminals can buy one down the block with no restrictions.

They are already considering taxation on ammo to limit its supply.

[tomder55]

I have not read the book but my guess would be that he is saying not every government decision should be subject to a public, 'show of hands'.

In modern democratic theory direct participation by the public is considered impractical. In other words, the public cannot vote away a government decision because the majority of citizens take a dislike to it at the time. There are other ways the public can display there displeasure.

The other aspect is the problem of the general public being 'knowledgeable', when it comes to complex legislation. For example, the taxation legislation is implemented by the relevant agencies without fear or favour ( in theory ). Unlike politicians, a bureaucrat is not influenced by public opinion. If a particular part of tax legislation is unpopular then it will probably go ahead anyway. Direct democracy is an interesting idea, but would be largely unworkable in a complex society.

I would say Crowley is pointing out what he sees as the obvious; good government is effective government. I would need to read his book, but this is my guess.

Tut

He's saying the permanent unelected and unaccountable bureaucrat knows what's best for the unwashed unsophisticated uneducated rubes of the electorate . Heck ;why even have elections ? Why have a Constitution ? Just hand power over to oligarchs and their appointed bureaucracy .Much more efficient!! Makes the trains run on time and all that .

[speechlesstx]

In modern democratic theory direct participation by the public is considered impractical.

I guess I should have engaged the sarcasm font, I wasn't inviting an explanation of what he meant. If that's what "modern democratic theory" believes, I'd consider it about as revolutionary as the 8-track tape.

The other aspect is the problem of the general public being 'knowledgeable', when it comes to complex legislation.

This is why I loathe progressives.

[TUT317]

I guess I should have engaged the sarcasm font, I wasn't inviting an explanation of what he meant. If that's what "modern democratic theory" believes, I'd consider it about as revolutionary as the 8-track tape.



This is why I loathe progressives.

Hi Speech,

Sorry, I though you were asking for an explanation.

I don't think it is a matter of being 'progressive', that's just the way representative government works in practical terms. I don't see it working any other way given the complex nature of society. Unless, you can come up with a better way to make it more democratic.

Tut

[speechlesstx]

I don't think it is a matter of being 'progressive'

No, I was just explaining why I think progressives are toxic for this country. Tom described their attitude toward the rest of us, we are to them "unwashed unsophisticated uneducated rubes." That pi$$es me off, not to mention it couldn't be further from the truth.

that's just the way representative government works in practical terms. I don't see it working any other way given the complex nature of society. Unless, you can come up with a better way to make it more democratic.

The U.S. is not a true democracy, and giving more power to unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats and further diminishing the power of the people I find unacceptable.

[excon]

we are to them "unwashed unsophisticated uneducated rubes." That pi$$es me off, not to mention it couldn't be further from the truth.

Hello Steve:

To you, we are the champagne sipping, over educated elite, pushing a secular homosexual agenda WITH pinkish overtones.

What's new?

excon

[speechlesstx]

Nah, I don't picture you that way. In fact I've told you I think I'd enjoy having a beer summit with you. I picture most progressives this way:

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

That guy looks exactly like me.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Hello again, Steve:

That guy looks exactly like me.

excon

Lol, I knew it.

[TUT317]

Hello again, Steve:

That guy looks exactly like me.

excon

Actually, I though he looks like Yo Samity Sam.

Only one way to find out.

Ex, say, "Someones a gunna do that high diving act and that someone is a gunna be you rabbit"

[paraclete]

Actually, I though he looks like Yo Samity Sam.

Only one way to find out.

Ex, say, "Someones a gunna do that high diving act and that someone is a gunna be you rabbit"

Tut I think he looks like that bloke who rode a camel across Australia, Ken Tuckey