Midway USA Rumor

[ZonieDiver]

Originally Posted by Utah Bob

I refuse to wear tights.
A feather is okay though.

Watch out, someone around here will really start commenting on your '32 inch waist' if you start wearing feathers!

[Hand]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

From the National Journal's website. <<LINK>>MOO, a threat of impeachment should be a measure of last resort--an option that is not even discussed until all other measures have failed.

I assert that an Executive Order IS a last resort, and that impeachment is the only counter. Would you suggest that we watch our access to 'assault weapons' and applicable materials be stripped away while a law suit make its way through the legal system?

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Hand

I assert that an Executive Order IS a last resort, and that impeachment is the only counter. Would you suggest that we watch our access to 'assault weapons' and applicable materials be stripped away while a law suit make its way through the legal system?

Did you read the article? Representative Stockman suggested other options.

The Constitution clearly establishes the legislative branch of the federal government as first among equals. If lawmakers need to resort to the most dire tool at their disposal to stop a president--who is himself not especially adept at doing his own job--then some American voters need to look themselves in the mirror and ask themselves what kinds of politicians they're sending to Washington, D.C. in the first place.

IMO, it is not a good political argument to say that the American legal system should be bypassed because one may not like the outcome.

[vorticity]

I don't have tights or a feather to wear, but I can confirm that the MidwayUSA email is correct, having received one yesterday. I had a few M1A mags on backorder for a month, originally to be 'back in stock' on the 25th, and the email I got confirmed that they are shipping anything that they have in stock separate from other items in advance of another potential ban. I've since gotten tracking numbers for the mags, which are on their way.

My sense was that Midway keeps a small buffer of stocked goods, and that their 25th of January in-stock date for this item was really more of a date when they'd have *enough* items in stock to maintain a steady flow of sales. If an EO came down the pipeline that prevented them from selling those items, they didn't want their customers with those items on backorder to be caught in limbo, especially if they had some (just not enough) of those items on the warehouse floor. My guess is they went through the orders by time placed and matched that to stock in-hand, and shipped everything they had left on a first-ordered, first-served basis.

I thought it was a nice touch on the part of Midway, making sure that a.) their customers don't get screwed, and b.) they're not stuck with product that they can't sell.

[Hand]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Did you read the article? Representative Stockman suggested other options.

The Constitution clearly establishes the legislative branch of the federal government as first among equals. If lawmakers need to resort to the most dire tool at their disposal to stop a president--who is himself not especially adept at doing his own job--then some American voters need to look themselves in the mirror and ask themselves what kinds of politicians they're sending to Washington, D.C. in the first place.

IMO, it is not a good political argument to say that the American legal system should be bypassed because one may not like the outcome.

I did read it Sigaba. And I agree with your second paragraph as well. Yet, here we are, on the verge of hearing that an Executive Order may suspend rights we are granted in the Constitution, an EO that bypasses the American legal system. Your suggestion is that we let him sign this order, turn a LOT of law abiding citizens into criminals, stamp the Presidential Seal of approval on the demonization of gun owners, then count on the legal system to give our guns back and un-demonize us? I know a non starter when I see one.

[ZonieDiver]

Originally Posted by Hand

I did read it Sigaba. And I agree with your second paragraph as well. Yet, here we are, on the verge of hearing that an Executive Order may suspend rights we are granted in the Constitution, an EO that bypasses the American legal system. Your suggestion is that we let him sign this order, turn a LOT of law abiding citizens into criminals, stamp the Presidential Seal of approval on the demonization of gun owners, then count on the legal system to give our guns back and un-demonize us? I know a non starter when I see one.

How long will the impeachment process take, and what are it's chances for success?

No doubt he could be impeached.

Do you think he'd lose in the Senate trial?

And... those morons in Congress would freeze ALL other important business facing this nation while they diddle themselves over this.

Courts are a better way to go, and IMHO give us a better chance at success.

[Hand]

Originally Posted by ZonieDiver

How long will the impeachment process take, and what are it's chances for success?

No doubt he could be impeached.

Do you think he'd lose in the Senate trial?

And... those morons in Congress would freeze ALL other important business facing this nation while they diddle themselves over this.

Courts are a better way to go, and IMHO give us a better chance at success.

The actual impeachment process for Clinton lasted ~ 2 months.

I think I see what you are getting at. An attempt to impeach him, after the fact, wont have any bearing on the EO being implemented.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from
Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under
the United States:

[source]


Would he actually lose the Senate trial? I doubt it. I cant quantify my doubt, I know that BHO has managed to do some things I thought impossible already (including getting re-elected) so its probably just pure pessimism.

I did a little research this morning and found an interesting precedent.
In DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER, the courts ruled in favor of Heller, partially basing their decision on United States v. Miller. This case defies the argument that "assault weapons" do not fall under the protection of the 2nd Amendment because they are a recent invention.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER states:

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

[source]

So maybe there is hope that a ban on "assault rifles" is illegal.