Handguns - Latest Reports
PistolsRevolvers
Specialty
Long Guns - Latest Reports
RiflesShotguns
Specialty
Special Purpose Guns - Latest Reports
Home DefenseSurplus/Collectible
Law Enforcement
Concealed Carry
Hunting
Recreational
Competitive
Ammo
Accessories
Gun News
Gun RightsIndustry Notes
New Products
Competitive
People
Special Reports
Replacing Missing Firing PinsDon’t give up if a replacement firing pin is unavailable from your catalog suppliers. Instead, use these tips to solve the problem.
Gun Tests Index 2011-1999Here are all the items tested in Gun Tests magazine from 2011 back through 1999.
Commentary
Media Matters Doesn't Really MatterThe group Media Matters for America hates NRA. Few organizations have more strongly proclaimed their disdain for our right to keep and bear arms and self-protection, says the NRA-ILA.
Video: What to Do During a Traffic StopLethal Force Institute’s Massad Ayoob gives a lesson on what to do if you are stopped with firearms in your vehicle. These essential tips will teach you how to safely interact with police when carrying a firearm while driving. (3:47).
Gun Reports - News
Obama will object to portions of the legislation on constitutional grounds.
Obama says he's not bound
by gun-control provisions
December 26, 2011
Printer Friendly | Email |
(GunReports.com) -- President Obama has said he will not be bound by at least 20 policy riders in the 2012 omnibus funding the government, including provisions pertaining to gun control.
After he signed the omnibus into law Friday, the White House released a concurrent signing statement saying Obama will object to portions of the legislation on constitutional grounds.
Signing statements are highly controversial, and their legality is disputed.
"I have advised the Congress that I will not construe these provisions as preventing me from fulfilling my constitutional responsibility to recommend to the Congress's consideration such measures as I shall judge necessary and expedient," Obama said in a statement as he signed the bill into law.
The president objected to a provision that bars health officials from advocating for gun control.
The 1,200-page omnibus funds all parts of the federal government except for the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Justice, Transportation and Housing and Urban Development, as well as the science agencies. Those were funded by a smaller bill that passed Congress in November.
Read more at TheHill.com.
Uh... I guess once again, he is above the Law. I'm throwing a party when they fumigate the White House in November, 2012. Indeed, Nov. 6, 2012 may go down in history as a national holiday, and will mark the rebirth of America's economy and a re-embracing of personal freedom. If the current regime is not deposed, it will mark the beginning of the end. That much is at stake. If I'm not mistaken, signing statements started with Reagan. So far, it seems Bush The Younger was the most prolific signer - or so I read somewhere. But yes, I suspect they are illegal under the Constitution, which provides for a Presidential veto, or signature, but not for any ability to fund / not fund or cherry-pick legislation for implementation / enforcement. Obama is certainly not the first to abuse the idea of a 'signing statement', and won't be the last. But it is a practice we should all be trying to eliminate. All a POTUS should be doing is vetoing and explaining why, or accepting legislation. Of course, it would be nice if Congress could learn how to write a decent law themselves - and then learn how to pass one. had to come back to click the box for updates.... A signing statement is simply a President attempting to exercise a line-item veto as to a particular piece of legislation. A number of Presidents have used these statements for similar purposes. Unfortunately the constitutionality of these statements have not been tested in the Courts. I absolutely agree that Obama must not get a second term, but whoever replaces him must also be better than he is and must believe that he is there to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Arrogant, megalomaniacal crook! As I recall, Visigoth52, at least some of Bush's signing statements prohibited funding for bills he felt he had to sign for political reasons. I can't say now where I read that - it was while he was still in office. If true, that would mean it's not 'simply a line item veto', which of course is also NOT provided for in the Constitution as I recall. As for a second BO term - if the GOP doesn't get serious about vetting their candidates to get the flying monkeys out of the primaries, we'd better all get used to the idea of another round of Obama. Some of those so-called 'front-runners' are just plain cuckoo - not to mention 'serial hypocrites' as Ron Paul's commercial says. I definitely agree with david b. I cannot remember a presidential primary in which a political party had such a field of unimpressive candidates, such as we now see in this Republican primary. I don't expect to see any new names thrown into the hat, so it's going to be up to the ones who are now in the race to convince us that they are truly the one that can beat Obama. One thing is certain, however, and that is who ever does get the Republican nomination, is the one for whom we must vote.....unless we want an unbridled lame duck term from an Obama who has nothing to fear from the electorate. Amen canovack! We are all in for a big cornholing. The GOP really screwed the pooch on this one. Keep buying ammo. I forgot to add. Bush 43, actually issued MORE presidential signing statements than all the previous presidents combined. I suspect it had to do with his inability to comprehend what it was he was actually signing in the bill and after that little Troll, Rove, told him to sign here, it doesn't mean anything, he issued those following directives. What a disgrace to America. I will vote for anyone who is running against this skinny little boy calling himself the king. Personally, I think all of those inside the beltway, have delusions of grandeur. After all, most of them ARE millionaires, having been elevated to those lofty perches by us pesants. Cecil B - it's amazing how quickly they get there too. I read after BO year 1 that he had paid taxes on $2.4mil the year before he was elected. When the first year of office ended he suddenly had to pay taxes on something like $5 mil. Where did a guy on a fed payroll limited by law get $5 million? I did a little math, and he would have had to earn that $3.5 mil increase somehow - but even if it was for $100k speaking engagements, he'd have to have booked one every day of that first year. So something didn't quite add up. Maybe he was invited to sit on the board of a hundred or so companies and paid well for it? I don't know, but it seemed fishy at the time. Now it sort of smells like dead fish to me. I seriously doubt that any answers to questions about BHO's finances will be met with anything but intransigence similar to the way he handled the birth certificate thing, and the way he is handling the Fast and Furious thing. As we are abundantly aware, BHO is a consummate narcissist who holds himself way above the rest of us common folk, and need not bother with any explanations of anything he does. While Bush II did his share of Constitution stomping, he was, if nothing else, a pretty humble person, who stands head and shoulders above BHO. "Signing statements," like all politics, are viewed as good or bad depending largely on whose ox is being gored. And, yes, Bush, Jr. used them more than anyone else. Congress tends to wrap up funding measures in one fell swoop and the Constitution allows a President to take it or leave it with a veto. Who here would complain of a President who received a bill funding the Army, the Navy and the BATFE issuing a signing statement saying that he simply would not issue the "authorized" funds for BATFE? The Republicans seem to have a glorious opportunity to retake the White House, and maybe Congress, and they are utterly blowing it while Obama is reaping the benefits. The big question is still whether to back someone like Romney, who may be "electable," but isn't really acceptable on a number of issues, or someone like Paul who may not be "electable," but who tends to view Constitutional freedoms as a given. Welcome back PVB. You've been missed. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all. I hope and pray that the new one will be better than the old. Just my opinion, but the difference between Romney and Paul (to me) would be that you might be surprised how many democrats would jump the fence to vote for Paul. Probably few if any would do that for Romney. I'm one who would vote for Ron Paul, and I don't consider myself to be unique or special, so I suspect there are a lot more 'Ron Paul-iberals' out there in America. He's not a liberal, but he's damned sure not mainstream GOP either. I suspect his association to that party is more of a historical accident than intentional. I have for most of my life, voted Democratic. I did not vote for Obama, nor do I intend to. Ron Paul is the only Republican that I COULD vote for with a clear conscience. He is a little bit out there but then, hell, he is OUR age. It would make for some interesting politics for a change, rather than the dog and pony show we have been seeing on CNN for the past 3 years. Whom ever we, as gun owners and Second Amendment adherents, might vote for, is a personal decision. That said, however, it is incumbent on all of us to do as much as possible to rid ourselves of the Obama menace. I would like to think that whomsoever does get the Republican nomination, is the candidate that we will all support, and for whom we will vote. If Ron Paul gets the nomination, slim chance that it might be, we should unite behind him. The important thought, here, is that the Republican candidate is our only hope of throwing Obama out of office. If any candidate should decide to go it alone and run as an independent/third party candidate, that candidate will be a pariah who will suck sufficient votes away from the Republican candidate, and in so doing will hand the victory to Obama. I know that the field of candidates is not particularly appetizing, but pragmatically speaking, we all must support the Republican candidate if we wish to see Obama out of office. I agree. BHO has to go. Have you been seeing the crap coming out the last few days about the ObamaCare shit? If you are over 70, good luck getting needed health care. We are now called "units", and "Comfort Care" is the new buzzword. That means, no expensive treatment that might save your life, rather, giving you drugs to help you pass on to the Great Beyond and be high when you go. Keep pulling for Ron. HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL. Well Cecil B, I keep praying that if I've earned any grace in the eyes of the Lord, he'll take me out as quickly as turning off a light when the time comes. However, if that doesn't work, I know a lot of people who would prefer a good buzz on the way out. Looks like we will have to save that one last silver bullet for ourselves before that African Indian scalps us. Who would have ever thought, way back in the 50s that we would come to this point in the history of America. It seems that each day, as I read the paper in the morning, while sending my morning message to Obama, I just mutter out loud, what in the hell has happened to us. What I have come to realize is that the entitlement party that BHO presides over outnumbers the realism party. If we are lucky enough to find a centrist candidate for the realism party, we may have a chance. Either way we can't let POTUS get away with writing his or her own constitutional views into law! Semper Fi The guy HAS to go. Cecil B - I'll save the silver bullet for the big, bad werewolf, assuming I survive the zombie hordes. I'll get killed anyway, so what the hell? I've had a pretty good life, and dead is dead, no matter how I get there. Who knows, if I take enough zombies with me, maybe I'll get 72 virgins in heaven! Or even better... 72 cougars! Rawhr! Yeah, david b, I'll take the cougars every time over the virgins! I never did comprehend why a guy would want to keep training fillies when he's grown up, when he could be having a nice ride with a cooperative, well-trained and spirited mare.... Yeah, david b, I recall when I was a lad, reading a magazine article that touted the finer points of middle aged women. I think it said something like this: "They don't tell; they don't swell; and they're appreciative as hell". That sort of stuck in my head, and served as a guide for those times when I was inclined to sow my wild oats. My mind was changed when I was 20-something and seeing a lady 12 years my senior. Whew! Oh the memories.... She taught me things no 'girl' had ever had the nerve to say to me - and every woman since has benefited, though the big secret was "slow down" - and eventually age did that for me. One even said she was going to send the lady flowers out of gratitude for her 'training'! But no matter... discretion ("they don't tell") is an important consideration once some silly wench goes spreading your business all over town. And that's happened to me at least twice. (Silly me for getting into that situation more than once!) Well david, we go places with a hard on that we wouldn't go with a shotgun. Too bad discretion doesn't sell newspapers.... I like canovack's slogan... How about a virgin and a cougar, with our role as the training aid.... I forgot - I borrowed a union chant for a rally cry: Hey, hey, ho ho; BHO has got to go! Well, now, PVB.....are you looking for those attributes (virgin and cougar) in the same woman? That might be pretty difficult to deal with. Cecil B - That is the damned truth. I married one of them. One of them places where I should have used my shotgun instead, that is. P V B - keep the virgin. Keep 'em all. Send me any cougars you pass on. I've raised 9 girls now, and I'm not really interested in young ones. Unless, of course, you're talking about virgins who quit the convent at 35. I've had my share of all the darned 'issues' and drama that goes with females being that young, and getting lucky with one won't make up for the hassles that come with her like her shadow. I can rent one that age and avoid the hassles, and she'll even be a virgin every time we meet too. But I still prefer a cougar, who cares more about how the engagement is fought than about getting to the end of it. Hey, isn't it sort of ironic how a news post about Obama ends up with us all talking about getting screwed? I'm just sayin'.... I know we are supposed to be talking guns here but I would be interested to hear from some of the Vets feelings about BHOs announcement today with respect to the downsizing of the military. While I am not in favor of sending out kids off to get killed in some shithole country like Afghanistan, I AM concerned with this race to get rid of the nukes at all cost. Seems to me, if you are gonna have a small number of "grunts", you need a large number of nukes. But, then, what do I know? Canovack - who said anything about one woman at a time? Ya know, the gentleman could enjoy the benefits of the experienced lady, while being part of passing skills along... ;) David B - I agree... Please don't ruin the fantasy though! And yeah, screwed - LMFAO!!! Cecil - BHO is an idiot wrt the military, but we already know that. Smaller force? Some sacrifices will be made?? As for the Douche Bag in Chief, I'm not really sure what constitutes a sacrifice. (Holder's head instead of his??) However, to those of us who swore "to defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic..." sacrifice usually means we get to wear a dress uniform and knock on a door, write a letter to somebody's next of kin, receive a "shipment" at Dover, or zipper a black plastic bag. There's a Cee-Lo Green song that applies to our current PotUS.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17eSUnQ-_ek I couldn't get the sound with that link. But, I am with you PVB. Hate to see this idiot screw up the military, like he has done with Health Care, the economy, Justice Dept. etc. We tried black, now it's time to go back. We've all said a million times that the Gov't. is a 3500 mile train wreck. They screw up everything they get involved in and that's no joke. Doesn't matter who POTUS is, Congress is totally to blame . Period end. No arguement there Sharps. But it would be nice to have an honest POTUS that would tell the truth to the people and TRY to prevent the sleezy dealings of government. Where is Harry Truman when we really need him. BHO stands up and says he is not bound by the laws of this nation and we actually let him slide on that one?. He is the entitlement parties main parasite and he has absolutely nothing new to give this fine nation except grief. Nuff said I think BHO is only interested in BHO. He has achieved the thing he most wanted, i.e. to be the first black POTUS. His ego would fill the U.S.S Enterprise. His wife is even worse. But the Republicans can't seem to get their shit together. So, prepare for 4 more years of BHO and it will be a hell of a lot worse then the first 4. Amen, Cecil..... Old "Give 'Em Hell Harry" would have had a field day with this entire crop of department secretaries, their minions, and the Congress. It isn't likely that we will ever see the likes of Harry Truman again. Harry was a WWI veteran, a humble and simple man of sound principles, and hell on wheels when it came to messing with him or his. When he left office in 1952, he and Bess walked from the White House, carrying their own baggage, to Union Station and boarded a train for Independence, Missouri. No fanfare for Harry.....just fact and action. God bless him. There just aren't any like him anymore. Truman is an interesting guy. FDR treated him like crap and he was NEVER priviy to what was going on. Hell, he was never expected to sit in the White House. But he went down as one of our greatest Presidents. And I think it had to do with the fact that he WAS a humble man, and an honest man and just wanted to do what was right. Too bad he didn't leave behind a slew of kids. I don't care what someone else did, I just dont want it to happen again, it's Bull shi& and he needs to follow the constitution just like everyone before him should have done. The biggest problem with this government is that they have forgotten that they work for WE THE PEOPLE and we are tired of making ends meet with the help of online loans! This thing of changing the constitution to suit them is a crock, Its us that they need to make happy. and if they can do it then there are ways embeded in our bill of rights to take care of that problem. People that work in the white house wing of the government think that they are above the law and that they know what is best for us. They hold us in disdain. An Important Note for GunReports.Com Readers: Our goal on this website is to foster a free expression of views while reining in language that crosses the line of civil discourse. Accordingly, the comments areas are intended to expand the knowledge of all users of this site. But site administrators wish to discourage the use of profanity, insults, disrespect, the advocacy of lawlessness, violence or sedition, or attempts to impinge on the rights of others. While GunReports.Com encourages robust discourse that furthers our understanding of all the issues affecting gun owners, comments that break GunReports.Com’s rules will be removed. In addition, we reserve the right to edit or delete individual comments, and in extreme cases, to ban commenters at our discretion. --Tim Cole To post a comment you must be a registered user of gunreports.com and be logged in. Use one of the forms below to login or register for FREE to gunreports.com
Reader Comments
Publisher, GunReports.Com