Rand Paul Vows to Stop Obama on Guns--and Obama Might Be Prepared to Lose

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) thinks Obama's gun control plans, especially the parts Obama thinks he can activate strictly via executive power, must be stopped, and has announced plans to try to stop them legislatively.

As published by Talking Points Memo, here are his intentions in what he calls the "Separation of Powers Restoration and Second Amendment Protection Act."

Paul says his legislation will declare that "Any executive order by President Obama infringing on the Second Amendment rights of all Americans would be declared null and void" and "would prohibit federal funds to implement President Obama's executive orders impacting the 2nd Amendment."

The prospective bill would also allow congressmen, state and local governments, and private persons to sue over such executive orders.

Politico has an interesting analysis arguing that, contra his generally understood policy in his first term of starting only political fights he can win, Obama might be prepared to crash and burn politically on principle on this gun issue, strongarming Senate Democrats to use political capital on possibly damaging (to their prospects, not considering their damage to American liberties, which will be more considerable) legislation that will surely die in the GOP-controlled House. The article says this is because of his deep emotional reaction to Sandy Hook -- and does not point out that no reasonable person could expect any of Obama's proposals to have stopped that from happening.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • R C Dean||

    Any executive order by President Obama infringing on the Second Amendment rights of all Americans would be declared null and void

    Sorry, but as phrased its an empty PR stunt. Any such order would be null and void regardless of whether this bill passes, provided you can get the courts to say it infringes on the 2A.

    And, to enforce the law, you would have to, wait for it, get the courts to agree the order infringes on the 2A.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Congress can state its opinion that there's no enabling legislation behind the order and that the order doesn't fall under the inherent authority of the executive. It's got as much right to interpret the Constitution and laws as the other two branches.

  • R C Dean||

    This isn't even interpreting the Constitution, as far as I can tell. Its just restating it, and saying (redundantly) that actions that violate the Constitution are null and void.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Sadly, that's a necessary exercise in this day and age. "Say, isn't that--whatta you call it?--unconstitutional?"

  • An0nB0t||

    It was necessary when Jefferson insisted on the Bill of Rights as well.

    You can never been too paranoid when it comes to statism.

  • John||

    Or get the courts to agree that the EO infringes on a statute or goes beyond the statutory power granted the president.

  • Adam330||

    Sounds like the bill might provide standing where it would otherwise be lacking. Otherwise agree.

  • sloopyinca||

    Any executive order by President Obama infringing on the Second Amendment rights of all Americans would be declared null and void

    Obama and Team Blue Senators would be OK with passing this bill, as worded. After all, they don't want to take 2A rights from all Americans. They just want to take them from the crazy ones that would commit acts like Sandy Hook.*

    *Anyone that would have an AR15, a clip with over 10 rounds in it or would sell it to a friend without the blessings and notification of the ATF.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Seriously, it's not all Americans. Just the ones that own guns.

  • Brutus||

    We clearly need a national database of little boxes with springs in them.

  • Restoras||

    I wish he would come to NY and convince shit-for-brains Cuomo that his recently passed law won't do squat to make people safer and has pissed off a whole shitload of gun owners.

  • sloopyinca||

    Besides, he needs a catchier acronym for this to gain any momentum. The SPASAPA Act doesn't do it. In fact, it almost comes across as racist against the ungainly and epileptics.

  • Almanian.||

    +1 spaz

  • Whiterun Guard||

    I got SOPRASAPA, which sounds like a delicious Mexican dessert or something.

  • sloopyinca||

    You should be getting this.

  • Drake||

    Bret Baier made the perfect analogy last night. Obama spending "political capital" on guns will be just as successful as newly re-elected President Bush's spending capital on Social Security reform.

    Senators in his own party, except those from the bluest states, will run like hell from these proposals. This whole thing will collapse in failure.

  • John||

    I find his using of dead kids for political purposes disgusting. But I can't say that I am upset he has decided to die on this hill.

  • Raston Bot||

    Once you use human child shields, you are all in.

  • wareagle||

    I wonder - what if Bush had trotted out the kiddies of 9/11 victims for signing of the Patriot Act. What do you suppose the reaction would have been?

  • Drake||

    He should have trotted out kids when he tried to patch Social Security. They are going to get fucked their entire working lives.

  • GroundTruth||

    +1

  • Proprietist||

    Bush did trot out some kiddies for the signing of No Child Left Behind.

    http://media.mlive.com/educati.....-large.jpg

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    But they're not dead, or orphans, or dead orphans.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Any chance the political capital Obama's squandering on gun control means he has less to spend on the budget fight?

    Maybe that's just wishful thinking. It's probably the other way around.

    If the Republicans spend a lot of political capital obstructing gun control, then they probably have less available to obstruct Obama's spending...not that Boehner is really against more spending anyway.

  • John||

    Ken,

    The Republicans won't have to spend political capital defending gun control. Defending popular positions builds political capital. You spend political capital to take on unpopular issues.

  • NoVAHockey||

    I keep hearing that "sandy hook" changed the debate. I'm not seeing it. that said, I might be blind to it, but I don't think that's the case.

  • Drake||

    I think it changes the debate on "gun-free" zones.

    The fact that the debate has been changed doesn't mean laws will change. (Other than NY going full-retard)

  • Raston Bot||

    It has changed the debate in the sense that people now explicitly admit to being driven by emotion and choosing not to understand statistics. Before this change, that was only implied.

  • PapayaSF||

    "This changes the debate" usually means "Here's an anomalous incident we can use to further our long-time agenda."

  • ||

    I don't think Obama is spending political capital on this at all. Political capital is spent reaching across the aisle for a genuine compromise. Obama has made a nice career of using divisiveness, demonizing his enemies and then making the occasional speech about how we all need to get along. Team Red has played into this exquisitely well by demonstrating zero ability to stick to rally around some sort of consistent position, like say fiscal conservatism.

  • Shocked||

    If and when Obama looses this fight. He will end up winning on the polictical front after the next mass shooting. Because he and his media toadies will blame it squarely on the GOP and NRA.

  • wareagle||

    you don't suppose those folks will point that not a single of Obama's grand ideas prevented a thing, do you?

  • Almanian.||

    Out of the blue last night, Mrs Almanian blurts out, "I AM THE INSURRECTION!" Proceeds to talk about how we need to move out west, "Live off the land", and make a stand.

    I laughed so hard I almost choked - just the way she sounded, and it was so random. But I think she's serious.

    WHAT A WOMAN!

  • sloopyinca||

    , "I AM THE INSURRECTION!"

    Maybe she's a big Stone Roses fan and you misunderstood her.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Your women is an awesome women. I AM THE INSURRECTION needs to become a meme.

  • GroundTruth||

    Excellent... either that or "Resistance is NOT futile!".

    Wish I got that at home, but I am making slow progress in that direction.

  • Southern Geologist||

    "The article says this is because of his deep emotional reaction to Sandy Hook..."

    I wonder where his deep emotional reaction to the hundreds of people killed by Fast & Furious was.

    I guess that was okay because they were sacrificed in the name of The Cause.

  • Rhywun||

    deep emotional reaction

    Yeah, I'm not buying it for a second either.

  • tarran||

    I guess that deep emotional reaction is why the worst day of his presidency was when a CIA pilot blew up a house full of kids on his orders.

    Oh wait, it wasn't! The worst day of his presidency wasn't when he accidentally ordered the massacre of a score of preschoolers, but when some crazy dude he had no connection to shot up a score of first graders.

    It feels worse when total strangers do bad things than when we order them done.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Like the rest of the statists (of Red and Blue variety), Obama doesn't have a problem with doing violence to others, no matter how inexcusable or unjustifiable it may be. He has a problem with unauthorized violence. So long as the violence is authorized, whether it is with a badge or some secret legal memorandum authorizing the execution of people across the world, he's okay with it.

    The Sandy Hook Elementary murders were only "emotional" to him because they were an affront to his imperial dignity as the arbiter of life and death.

  • Cloudbusting||

    "...because of his deep emotional reaction" -

    How does it historically come about that this is considered an acceptable justification for the actions of someone who is supposed to be in a leadership position?

    Maybe I'm just a savage who needs sensitivity training, or maybe I should just stop rereading "Gates of Fire".

  • ||

    Off topic: just got back from Whore Foods. I love seeing all the Obama and other hippy-dippy bumper stickers in the parking lot, knowing the CEO of the company is a libertarian who hates Obamacare and whose workers are not unionized.

  • Zeb||

    And who called Obamacare Fascist. That guy is pretty awesome for a vegan.

  • thom||

    But they're well compensated and it's a good place to work. The paradox of Whole Foods is that it is a company largely run the way progressives would like to force all companies to be run. Liberals who get themselves in a tizzy about Whole Foods are largely pissed that an evil libertarian would voluntarily run a company that way, without being forced to by benevolent government.

  • Tman||

    I have a few friends who work at our local WF, and they all get insane benefits and profit sharing. Their benny packages are the envy of any retail employer.

    Plus the way they allow the store to operate relatively free from corporate influence in order to properly fit in their respective communities is exemplary.

    But I'm still not paying $4.99 for a green bell pepper just because it was grown organically. You stupid hippies can pay for that. I really only go to WF for the seafood selection and their cheese selections, which are the best available in town.

  • Raston Bot||

    The beer-on-tap/growler movement is a winner too.

  • thom||

    They're a great place to buy bulk beans, split peas, lentils, etc.

  • Raston Bot||

    I only shop at My Other Mortgage, thank you very much.

    /smug

  • ||

    I had to go there because I needed nut fours, stat. Giant and Safeway don't carry what I need (my local Giant has no nut flours and Safeway only has almond and dark flaxseed). Whore Foods had a biggie-sized package of ground golden flaxseeds - exactly what I needed! I forgot to look for the stevia soda, though.

  • SugarFree||

    Be careful buying large bags of ground flaxseed; it can go rancid quickly. I had to learn about the the hard way. Whole flaxseedstores for damn near ever, on the other hand.

  • GroundTruth||

    Agreed, sort of the Hank Rearden of the real world.

  • Jordan||

    "Whore Foods"? I think I would like to shop there...

  • Proprietist||

    Instead of going to a bar, I went to Whole Foods last night to purchase an $11 bottle of Cuvee Van De Keizer Blauw Grand Cru in honor of John Mackey.

    On a side note, I can't understand why anyone would pay $11 for a mediocre wine when they can pay $11 for the same amount of the finest beer in the world.

  • Tman||

    Can we hurry up and nominate Rand already?

    What is this guys big drawback as presidential material other than age and relative inexperience? I realize the left will go apeshit over his civil rights legislation remarks but that I think can be massaged properly.

    I can't remember the last time I was this impressed with a politician who gets fired up enough to take action about shit that actually matters, like constitutional limits on government or insane federal spending.

    Dare I say it gives me hope?

  • Spoonman.||

    He looks sorta clownish and he isn't very good at public appearances. So hopefully he's working on that.

  • ||

    He's actually really handsome for a DC politician. He does need to get rid of that tuft of hair on his head for a cleaner look.

    I have seen reason's interview with him, and he did quite well, but that wasn't "live".

  • Cloudbusting||

    Ah, beauty contests. My mother is always remarking that "Rand Paul would be a great candidate if he wasn't so short." WTF? I think he's pretty bangin'.

  • GroundTruth||

    His big drawback is that he's not a foaming-at-the-mouth Statist, which seems to be what about 80 percent of the population actually want (regardless of red or blue).

    But if he so much as mentions a run for President, I'll be making a contribution to get him going.

    How bout a Paul-Amash ticket for an over the top fantasy?

  • UnionBuiltOhioRoads(LAOL)||

    They could never call a Paul-Massie ticket a "ticket for dumb people"....due to Paul being an optometrist and Massie being an MIT grad.

  • robc||

    Not legal, they are from same state.

  • Proprietist||

    Paul-Daniels would be my preferred ticket. I know Daniels isn't exactly a libertarian ideologue, but he's one of the most credible libertarianish governors.

  • An0nB0t||

    They'd need a bubba or someone with long-term political cred for the VP slot. No one's jumping off the page at me right now, though DeMint might fit the bill.

    I know he's not a shining beacon of LRC-conspiring crypto-anarchism like his dad, but I still feel this thrill going up my leg every time I see Rand on the big stage ripping into a statist.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement