Executive Orders

Reuters: ‘Chicago/Cook County’ Risks Losing $526.4 Million Annually In Federal Funds For ‘Sanctuary City’ Stance

It’s being reported U.S. President Donald Trump is serious about blocking federal funds to “sanctuary cities” like Chicago (first blogged about here).

A recent Reuters analysis of federal data determined “Chicago/Cook County” risks losing $526.4 million in annual funds for shielding illegal aliens.

Rory Carroll, Robin Respaut, and Andy Sullivan noted Thursday on Reuters.com:

The numbers do not include federal money for law enforcement, which was excluded in the executive order, and programs like Medicaid, which are administered by state governments.

Though details remain vague, the order could jeopardize billions of dollars in housing, health, education and other types of federal aid.

Carroll, Respault, and Sullivan reported $2.27 billion in annual funds from the feds for the nation’s 10 largest “sanctuary cities” (Chicago included) are threatened.

To see the breakdown by city/county, check out the Reuters graphic here.

By Christopher E. Hill
Survival And Prosperity (www.survivalandprosperity.com)

Source:

Carroll, Rory, Respaut, Robin, and Sullivan, Andy. “Top 10 U.S. sanctuary cities face roughly $2.27 billion in cuts by Trump policy.” Reuters. 26 Jan. 2017. (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-sanctuarycities-idUSKBN1592V9?platform=hootsuite). 27 Jan. 2017.

Share

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

NRA: BATFE To Ban Common AR-15 Ammo

It was only a matter of time. Several weeks into the new year, and the gun “control” crowd is off-and-running again. There’s been a number of developments lately, but here’s one that seems to be really worrying American gun owners- particularly those possessing the popular AR-15 rifle. From the website of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislation Action (NRA-ILA) this past Friday:

In a move clearly intended by the Obama Administration to suppress the acquisition, ownership and use of AR-15s and other .223 caliber general purpose rifles, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives unexpectedly announced today that it intends to ban commonplace M855 ball ammunition as “armor piercing ammunition.” The decision continues Obama’s use of his executive authority to impose gun control restrictions and bypass Congress.

It isn’t even the third week of February, and the BATFE has already taken three major executive actions on gun control. First, it was a major change to what activities constitute regulated “manufacturing” of firearms. Next, BATFE reversed a less than year old position on firing a shouldered “pistol.” Now, BATFE has released a “Framework for Determining Whether Certain Projectiles are ‘Primarily Intended for Sporting Purposes’ Within the Meaning of 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(c)”, which would eliminate M855’s exemption to the armor piercing ammunition prohibition and make future exemptions nearly impossible.

By way of background, federal law imposed in 1986 prohibits the manufacture, importation, and sale by licensed manufacturers or importers, but not possession, of “a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely . . . from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium.” Because there are handguns capable of firing M855, it “may be used in a handgun.” It does not, however, have a core made of the metals listed in the law; rather, it has a traditional lead core with a steel tip, and therefore should never have been considered “armor piercing.” Nonetheless, BATFE previously declared M855 to be “armor piercing ammunition,” but granted it an exemption as a projectile “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes.”

Now, however, BATFE says that it will henceforth grant the “sporting purposes” exception to only two categories of projectiles:

Category I: .22 Caliber Projectiles

A .22 caliber projectile that otherwise would be classified as armor piercing ammunition under 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B) will be considered to be “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes” under section 921(a)(17)(C) if the projectile weighs 40 grains or less AND is loaded into a rimfire cartridge.

Category II: All Other Caliber Projectiles

Except as provided in Category I (.22 caliber rimfire), projectiles that otherwise would be classified as armor piercing ammunition will be presumed to be “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes” under section 921(a)(17)(C) if the projectile is loaded into a cartridge for which the only handgun that is readily available in the ordinary channels of commercial trade is a single shot handgun. ATF nevertheless retains the discretion to deny any application for a “sporting purposes” exemption if substantial evidence exists that the ammunition is not primarily intended for such purposes.

BATFE is accepting comments until March 16, 2015 on this indefensible attempt to disrupt ammunition for the most popular rifle in America. Check back early next week for a more in-depth analysis of this “framework” and details on how you can submit comments.

How to comment – from the BATFE

ATF will carefully consider all comments, as appropriate, received on or before March 16, 2015, and will give comments received after that date the same consideration if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before March 16, 2015. ATF will not acknowledge receipt of comments. Submit comments in any of three ways (but do not submit the same comments multiple times or by more than one method):

ATF email: APAComments@atf.gov

Fax: (202) 648-9741.

Mail: Denise Brown, Mailstop 6N-602, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, 99 New York Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20226: ATTN: AP Ammo Comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denise Brown, Enforcement Programs and Services, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice, 99 New York Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20226; telephone: (202) 648-7070.

Permission has been granted by the NRA-ILA to reproduce the above.


“BATF to ban M855/SS109 ammo”
YouTube Video

Christopher E. Hill
Survival And Prosperity (www.survivalandprosperity.com)

Share

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

Quote For The Week

“Have you met Joe Biden?”

-U.S. Representative Trey Gowdy (R-SC 4th District), on impeaching President Obama for issuing an Executive Order granting amnesty to illegal immigrants in the United States

By Christopher E. Hill
Survival And Prosperity (www.survivalandprosperity.com)

Share

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

Glenn Beck: ‘I Think We’re In The Most Dangerous Period Now Than The Republic Has Been In Since The Civil War’

Last year I had the pleasure of meeting Glenn Beck, the American television/radio host and producer, political commentator, author, and entrepreneur down at his Dallas studio. I was already familiar with his work from FOX News and TheBlaze, and in-person he seemed like a pretty knowledgeable guy who’s able to grasp the big picture in terms of where our country is most likely heading. Here’s what the host of The Glenn Beck Program is saying these days about where U.S. President Barack Obama is going to try and take the country now that the midterm elections are over. To which he adds a dire warning. In an exchange with Bill O’Reilly on The O’Reilly Factor Wednesday night:

O’REILLY: So you’re sitting there with your pie up and your Fred MacMurray sweater and you’re watching the returns roll in- what are you saying to yourself? Are you cheering? Is it good for you? Do you feel vindicated? What’s the feeling?
BECK: My feeling is the President is disconnected from the American people entirely. You saw there was no humility in his press conference today. And he is also disconnected from the Democrats. Hillary Clinton has already separated herself, so now she’s going to play the moderate. He announced yesterday when the election was still going on- that’s usually when the president is quiet- he came out yesterday and said by Christmas he will have his Executive Order on illegal immigration. I think this president- and I hope this is not true- but I think this president is going to go more radical. He doesn’t have anything to lose. He is going to super-serve the uber-left. And the Republicans are not prepared for this. They’re playing politics circa 1975. And they’re not going to be prepared for it. I think we have a very bad scenario headed our way where somebody- because the Democrats won’t be blamed on it because they’ll say “We didn’t have anything to do with it” and “You know what? We’re not as extreme as he is.” And so somebody is going to be able to play the middle ground between the evil Republicans and this president. And I think it could get ugly. I think we’re in the most dangerous period now than the Republic has been in since the Civil War. From now until probably spring of 2017…


FOX News Video

By Christopher E. Hill
Survival And Prosperity (www.survivalandprosperity.com)

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

White House ‘Fact Sheet’ On New Gun ‘Control’ Initiatives

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”

-Rahm Emanuel, then-chief of staff for then-President-elect Barack Obama, Wall Street Journal CEO Council, November 19, 2008

While many Americans are distracted by the possibility of American military intervention in Syria, U.S. President Barack Obama has announced new gun “control” initiatives. From the White House website today:

FACT SHEET: New Executive Actions to Reduce Gun Violence

Today, the Obama administration announced two new common-sense executive actions to keep the most dangerous firearms out of the wrong hands and ban almost all re-imports of military surplus firearms to private entities. These executive actions build on the 23 executive actions that the Vice President recommended as part of the comprehensive gun violence reduction plan and the President unveiled on January 16, 2013.

Even as Congress fails to act on common-sense proposals, like expanding criminal background checks and making gun trafficking a federal crime, the President and Vice President remain committed to using all the tools in their power to make progress toward reducing gun violence.

Building on the 23 Executive Actions the President and Vice President Unveiled Last January

• Last December, the President asked the Vice President to develop a series of recommendations to reduce gun violence. On January 16, 2013, they released these proposals, including 23 executive actions. With the first Senate confirmation of an ATF Director on July 31, 2013, the Administration has completed or made significant progress on 22 of the 23 executive actions. The new executive actions unveiled today build on this successful effort.

Closing a Loophole to Keep Some of the Most Dangerous Guns Out of the Wrong Hands

• Current law places special restrictions on many of the most dangerous weapons, such as machine guns and short-barreled shotguns. These weapons must be registered, and in order to lawfully possess them, a prospective buyer must undergo a fingerprint-based background check.
• However, felons, domestic abusers, and others prohibited from having guns can easily evade the required background check and gain access to machine guns or other particularly dangerous weapons by registering the weapon to a trust or corporation. At present, when the weapon is registered to a trust or corporation, no background check is run. ATF reports that last year alone, it received more than 39,000 requests for transfers of these restricted firearms to trusts or corporations.
• Today, ATF is issuing a new proposed regulation to close this loophole. The proposed rule requires individuals associated with trusts or corporations that acquire these types of weapons to undergo background checks, just as these individuals would if the weapons were registered to them individually. By closing this loophole, the regulation will ensure that machine guns and other particularly dangerous weapons do not end up in the wrong hands.

Keeping Surplus Military Weapons Off Our Streets

• When the United States provides military firearms to its allies, either as direct commercial sales or through the foreign military sales or military assistance programs, those firearms may not be imported back into the United States without U.S. government approval. Since 2005, the U.S. Government has authorized requests to reimport more than 250,000 of these firearms.
• Today, the Administration is announcing a new policy of denying requests to bring military-grade firearms back into the United States to private entities, with only a few exceptions such as for museums. This new policy will help keep military-grade firearms off our streets.

By Christopher E. Hill, Editor
Survival And Prosperity (www.survivalandprosperity.com)

Source:

“FACT SHEET: New Executive Actions to Reduce Gun Violence.” The White House. 29 Aug. 2013. (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/29/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence). 29 Aug. 2013.

Share

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

Obama May Use Executive Orders For More Gun ‘Control’

JENNIFER GRANHOLM: After Gabby Giffords was shot in 2011, the Department of Justice actually came up with a list of steps- this was reported in The New York Times this weekend- a list of steps that the administration could take to improve the system of background checks. Like pooling information from other agencies to help identify people who are not mentally competent. I, as a former person in the executive branch, used to love stuff that I could do without having to go to the state legislature. The President, presumably, has an opportunity here to pick up those regulatory measures. Do you think not?

ROBERT REICH: Yes, some can be done by executive order. And he will, I think, try to do that. If it’s an executive order, by definition, Congress can’t stop him. There may be efforts to say that he has exceeded his authority under executive order. I think the big factor here, though, for the President, the White House, for Democrats, is that the election is over. And I don’t want to appear too cynical about this, Jennifer, but one reason the President may not have taken up what the Department of Justice had tentatively come up with, before the election, was the fear that there would be a backlash.

-Gun ‘control’ discussion between Current TV’s Jennifer Granholm and former U.S. Secretary of Labor Robert Reich on Current TV’s The War Room with Jennifer Granholm this past Monday.

The following talk of “executive actions” caught my attention the other day. From Reuters’ David Ingram and Karey Wutkowski on Wednesday:

The Obama administration will consider executive actions and specific proposals for legislation as part of its gun policy response to the school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said on Wednesday.

(Editor’s note: Italics added for emphasis)

And then there was this from Michael D. Shear on The New York Times that same day:

President Obama declared on Wednesday that he would make gun control a “central issue” as he opens his second term, promising to submit broad new firearm proposals to Congress no later than January and to employ the full power of his office to overcome deep-seated political resistance.

(Editor’s note: Italics added for emphasis)

“And to employ the full power of his office to overcome deep-seated political resistance.”

By the sound of all this, I wouldn’t be surprised if the White House uses Executive orders to implement more gun “control.”

According to the Federal Register website, Barack Obama has issued 140 of these orders since becoming President.

Sources:

Shear, Michael D. “Obama Vows Fast Action in New Push for Gun Control.” The New York Times. 19 Dec. 2012. (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/us/politics/obama-to-give-congress-plan-on-gun-control-within-weeks.html?_r=1&). 21 Dec. 2012.

Wutkowski, Karey and Ingram, David. “Holder: executive actions to be considered on gun violence.” Reuters. 19 Dec. 2012. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/19/us-usa-shootings-connecticut-holder-idUSBRE8BI13720121219). 21 Dec. 2012.

Share

Tags: , , , , , ,

Democrats To Push Gun Ban On First Day Of New Congress

“In the coming weeks, I will use whatever power this office holds to engage my fellow citizens- from law enforcement to mental health professionals to parents and educators- in an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like this.”

-U.S. President Barack Obama at a prayer vigil in Newtown, Connecticut, last night

A person who’s only just tuned-in to U.S. current events in the last week or two would probably have a pretty good idea of where the country looks to be heading:

More attacks on religion, more drugs, more government regulation, more government spending (and waste), more taxes.

Oh, add more gun “control” to that list. In the form of a gun ban, no less.

Amanda Sakuma reported on the MSNBC TV web site Sunday:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, said on Meet the Press Sunday morning that she would introduce an assault weapons ban on the first day of the next Congress. “It’s a first-day bill I’m going to introduce in the Senate and the same bill will be introduced in the House, a bill to ban assault weapons,” Feinstein said. “It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation and the possession–not retroactively but prospectively–and it will ban the same for big clips, drums or strips of more than 10 bullets.”

(Editor’s note: Italics added for emphasis)

Another top Democrat in the Senate discussed what’s hoped to be accomplished with up-and-coming gun control legislation. Sakuma added:

Feinstein’s Democratic colleague, New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, said on CBS’ Face the Nation that the U.S. had finally reached “tipping point where we can actually get something done.” Schumer outlined what he said were the top three areas that Congress will focus on with legislation.

“One is to ban assault weapons, try and reinstate the assault weapons bans,” he said Sunday. “Second is to limit the size of clips to maybe no more than 10 bullets per clip, and third is to make it harder for mentally unstable people to get guns.”

(Editor’s note: Italics added for emphasis)

“Third is to make it harder for mentally unstable people to get guns.”

I can’t help but wonder if gun owners who’ve ever seen a shrink or veterans who’ve been diagnosed with anxiety disorders like PTSD wouldn’t be affected by this. That’s one way of wrestling a lot of guns away from the masses (in the politicians’ minds, at least).

Meanwhile, at the White House, Gary Fields and Laura Meckler reported on the Wall Street Journal website last night:

President Barack Obama is also likely to propose gun-policy changes, according to two administration officials

The White House is looking at various options, and the scope and details of the president’s approach aren’t clear. One possibility likely to be considered is a ban on high-capacity magazines, the devices attached to firearms that store large numbers of bullets and reload them rapidly…

No White House proposal is imminent, and it remains to be seen whether it would be legislative or administrative and how hard the president would push for any legislative initiative.

(Editor’s note: Italics added for emphasis)

“Administrative.” As in Executive Order? Time will tell.

Regardless of the horrific event that took place in Newtown last week, the push for more gun control- and a gun ban- by the Democratic Party should come as no surprise to regular Survival And Prosperity readers. Back on September 6, 2012, I noted that the Democratic Party’s 2012 National Platform approved at the Democratic National Convention included talk of “reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole.” And on October 17, 2012, I blogged about President Obama announcing at the second presidential debate:

But I also share your belief that weapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don’t belong on our streets. And so what I’m trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault weapons ban reintroduced, but part of it is also looking at other sources of the violence, because frankly, in my hometown of Chicago, there’s an awful lot of violence, and they’re not using AK-47s, they’re using cheap handguns.

(Editor’s note: Italics added for emphasis)

That remark by Obama about “looking at other sources of the violence” and “handguns” have left some to speculate these firearms are also in the cross-hairs of Democrats.

I live at “ground zero” of gun control (Chicago, Cook County, Illinois). And plenty of you know just how well that’s working out as it’s probably only a matter of days before the city reaches 500 “official” murders for the year. By the way, Connecticut has some pretty strict gun control laws as well. Henry D’Andrea wrote on the Washington Times website Sunday:

Connecticut has some of the strictest laws in the nation. To obtain a gun there, you must be 21. You must apply for a local permit with the town’s police chief and be fingerprinted for a state and federal background check. The process includes a 14-day waiting period, and the state requires a gun safety course for anyone who purchases a handgun.

The shooter in Connecticut wasn’t eligible to own a gun, as he wasn’t 21. He stole the weapons from his mother, who legally obtained them.

Plus, I understand the state already has an assault “weapons” ban on their books.

According to the National Rifle Association, there are already more than 20,000 gun laws in the United States.

With more to come, if Democrats get their way.

Sources:

Sakuma, Amanda. “Dems promise: First day of new Congress, a new gun law.” MSNBC TV. 16 Dec. 2012. (http://tv.msnbc.com/2012/12/16/dems-promise-first-day-of-new-congress-a-new-gun-law/). 17 Dec. 2012.

Fields, Gary and Meckler, Laura. “New Calls for Gun Limits.” Wall Street Journal. 16 Dec. 2012. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324677204578183781498008140.html). 17 Dec. 2012.

D’Andrea, Henry. “Sandy Hook: Gun control wouldn’t have stopped it.” Washington Times. 16 Dec. 2012. (http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/conscience-conservative/2012/dec/16/why-gun-control-wouldnt-have-prevented-connecticut/). 17 Dec. 2012.

Share

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

Survival And Prosperity
Est. 2010, Chicagoland, USA
Christopher E. Hill, Editor

Successor to Boom2Bust.com
"The Most Hated Blog On Wall Street"
(Memorial Day Weekend 2007-2010)

Happy Thanksgiving

PLEASE RATE this blog HERE,
and PLEASE VOTE for the blog below:



Thank you very, very much!
Advertising Disclosure here.
ANY CHARACTER HERE
Emergency Foods Local vendor (Forest Park, IL). Review coming soon.
ANY CHARACTER HERE
Legacy Food Storage Review coming soon
ANY CHARACTER HERE
MyPatriotSupply.com reviewed HERE
ANY CHARACTER HERE
Buy Gold And Silver Coins BGASC reviewed HERE
ANY CHARACTER HERE
BulletSafe reviewed HERE
ANY CHARACTER HERE
BullionVault BullionVault.com reviewed HERE
This project dedicated to St. Jude
Patron Saint of Desperate Situations

Categories

 

Archives