Executive Orders

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by pnac

...What about a "Presidential Proclamation", does it carry any legal weight that should concern us?...

You can answer this if you'd read what you quoted:

...The administrative weight of these proclamations is upheld because they are often specifically authorized by congressional statute,...

Are there any statutes that need concern us that authorize the President to do something troubling by proclamation? Can you think of any past substantive act taken by presidential proclamation?

[pnac]

You can answer this if you'd read what you quoted:

Sorry I asked, I won't trouble you again! Sheesh

[nate45]

Been busy all day just saw the headlines. So crazy Uncle Joe says something crazy and people are getting excited? No executive order can take away any rights. I'm starting to think Obama and Company have stock in the firearms industry.

[Hal]

I find the 78% favoring registration the most worrying of the poll responses. This means that significant numbers of gun owners most likely support that if the poll data is correct.

(taken from this thread: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=511709 )
In reference to this link:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=511709

Before putting any faith in those polls, look at where those numbers come from.
Here's the link to one mentioned:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv..._20121216.html
Here's the actual questions asked & answers on the topic of guns:
"QUESTIONS 28 TO 31 BASED ON 602 INTERVIEWS DEC. 14-16. ERROR MARGIN=4.5 POINTS.

28. On another subject: Do you favor or oppose stricter gun control laws in this country?
----------- Favor -------- ---------- Oppose ------- No
NET Strongly Somewhat NET Somewhat Strongly opinion
12/16/12 54 44 10 43 11 32 3
8/5/12** 51 39 11 47 10 37 2
1/16/11 52 39 13 45 12 33 3
4/24/09 51 36 14 48 12 36 1
9/7/08 RV 50 31 19 45 14 30 5
4/22/07 61 41 20 36 12 23 3
10/8/06 61 45 16 37 15 22 2
5/12/02 57 39 19 37 15 22 6
1/15/01 59 46 13 39 13 26 2
5/10/00 67 50 17 30 9 22 3
4/2/00 64 49 14 34 13 21 2
9/2/99 63 52 11 35 11 25 2
8/15/99 63 46 16 34 12 22 3
5/16/99 67 55 12 31 10 21 1
10/13/93* 64 40 24 33 13 20 3
6/8/89* 60 28 32 34 11 23 6
**Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation
*Gallup trend: "Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose enacting tougher gun control laws?"


29. Would you support or oppose a law requiring a nationwide ban on [ITEM]?
12/16/12 - Summary Table

----- Support ----- ------ Oppose ----- No
NET Strg. Smwt. NET Smwt. Strg. opin.
a. Semi-automatic handguns,
which automatically
re-load every time the
trigger is pulled 52 42 11 44 11 34 3
b. The sale of handguns,
except to law
enforcement officers 27 20 7 71 15 56 2
c. High-capacity
ammunition clips,
meaning those containing
more than 10 bullets 59 47 12 38 9 29 2

Trend where available:

a. Semi-automatic handguns, which automatically re-load every time the trigger is pulled

--------- Support -------- ---------- Oppose ------- No
NET Strongly Somewhat NET Somewhat Strongly opinion
12/16/12 52 42 11 44 11 34 3
1/16/11 48 39 9 50 12 37 2
4/22/07 55 46 9 41 9 32 3

b. The sale of handguns, except to law enforcement officers

--------- Support -------- ---------- Oppose ------- No
NET Strongly Somewhat NET Somewhat Strongly opinion
12/16/12 27 20 7 71 15 56 2
1/16/11 31 23 8 67 14 54 2
4/22/07 38 28 9 60 17 42 3
5/10/00 38 26 12 59 16 43 3
9/2/99 32 23 9 65 18 47 3

c. High-capacity ammunition clips, meaning those containing more than 10 bullets

--------- Support -------- ---------- Oppose ------- No
NET Strongly Somewhat NET Somewhat Strongly opinion
12/16/12 59 47 12 38 9 29 2
1/16/11 57 46 11 39 10 29 3


30. What do you think is the best way to reduce gun violence in this country - (by passing stricter gun control laws), or (by stricter enforcement of existing laws)?
Passing Enforcing Both Neither No
new laws existing laws (vol.) (vol.) opinion
12/16/12 32 49 8 7 3
1/16/11 29 57 5 7 2
4/24/09 27 61 5 4 2
4/22/07 29 52 9 8 1
4/2/00 33 53 7 5 2


31. Thinking about the shooting at a Connecticut elementary school: Do you think this shooting reflects broader problems in American society, or are things like this just the isolated acts of troubled individuals?
Broader problems Isolated acts No opinion
12/16/12 52 43 5
7/29/12* 24 67 81/16/11 31 58 12
4/22/07 46 47 7
*July 2012 and previous: Pew Research Center. July, 2012 about “Shooting in Colorado”;
January, 2011 asked about “Shooting in Tucson, Arizona”; April, 2007 question asked
about shooting at Virginia Tech University. "

What I highlighted above is something the linked table in the linked article failed to include - the huge change in that catagory in the last 6 months...

[hounddawg]

crazy Uncle Joe was just floating a trial balloon to see what would happen. A quick read of the reader comments at the end of articles about it on sites such as CBS and CNN shows the public reacting like they found a chunk of feces in a half empty punchbowl. Just some political grandstanding and a testing of the water in my opinion.

I expect when all is said and done we we see more stringent background checks, harsher penalties for straw purchases and perhaps ensuring that all transactions be conducted through a FFL. I can see Obama doing a executive order on that, but not much more. At the very outside would be a reinstatement of the 1994 bill

This is nothing new, here is link to a article written back in 2011 concerning Obama and his desire to use executive orders for gun control

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_836138.html

[Kryptic]

So, hypothetically let’s say an EO is issued what happens?

It can be challenged by the Congress and/or in the courts. Right?

Obviously based on the current climate in Washington it is difficult to speculate on what Congress might do.

So, regardless of how many Legal Scholars and previous precedents say it is un-Constitutional if the current Court says it is acceptable it then becomes Constitutional. Am I correct?
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman

Since no one else wants to answer it, I will. This is correct. The next Justice will tip the balance and will not be good for any further gun cases/issues that go before them, for us.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Frank Ettin

Not really. The authority to issue regulations on a matter must be conferred in some way by a statute to which a regulation pertains. Issuance of regulations is in effect a delegation of legislative authority, and there is a large body of decisional law circumscribing that regulatory authority.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 allow for restriction from import arms without a "sporting purpose". There was no Congressional act that empowered the BATF to restrict from import arms not designed for hunting, yet subsequent regulation established such a restriction.

This is an example of a statute which is silent on a matter, i.e. restriction from import on arms without a "hunting purpose", but where an agency is granted that authority by way of regulation.

It is entirely reasonable for people to worry that the executive will overstepp his constitutional limits in its effort to establish greater restrictions. My crystal ball does not prevent me to assure anyone that the manner of implementation and substance of a future restriction will be consistent with our understanding of the constitutional limits of executive power.

[zincwarrior]

What could be done via EO? Maybe tightening states' reporting requirements to NICS, or (one I could get behind) encouraging more aggressive prosecution of straw purchases and other trafficking crimes.

Long story short, take what Biden says with a grain of salt.

These would be good things, so that can't be it.

[thallub]

There was no Congressional act that empowered the BATF to restrict from import arms not designed for hunting, yet subsequent regulation established such a restriction.

The "sporting purposes" clause is in the Gun Control Act of 1968: Public Law 90-618. Its been there from day one. That clause give wide latitude to the white house and the BATFE.

[zincwarrior]

So, via EO effectively ban foreign made firearms? I could see that happening. You wouldn't see a lot of objection from S&W on that front...
You would have to have foreign invest in plants in the US to meet some sort of domestic content standard then? Could definitely see that.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by me

The Gun Control Act of 1968 allows for restriction from import arms without a "sporting purpose". There was no Congressional act that empowered the BATF to restrict from import arms not designed for hunting, yet subsequent regulation established such a restriction.

Originally Posted by Thallub

The "sporting purposes" clause is in the Gun Control Act of 1968: Public Law 90-618. Its been there from day one. That clause give wide latitude to the white house and the BATFE.

That is the point. The act itself does not limit import to arms with an "hunting purpose". The act is silent on that point.

Hunting is clearly not the only sporting purpose. The subsequent regulation is a substantial expansion.

[Jack_Bauer24]

The one EO he could do is stop all foreign made firearms, high capacity magazines, and ammunition from coming into the country.

[Kimio]

Isn't Wolf and Tula manufactured overseas? That would be the end of them then wouldn't it if such a EO was enacted?

[meric35]

Forgive my lack of knowledge on the powers of the EO, but couldn't an EO simply be issued to automatically deny any NICS check on say any weapon with a magazine greater than 10 rounds or a "military style" firearm (whatever that means)? Could that be done? It's simple and doesn't create a new law, I think. It would also prevent the sale of a large percentage of whatever weapons the POTUS wants to block.

[Silent Bob]

Such an EO would block the transfer of probably 70% of the firearms out there.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

The Gun Control Act of 1968 allow for restriction from import arms without a "sporting purpose". There was no Congressional act that empowered the BATF to restrict from import arms not designed for hunting, yet subsequent regulation established such a restriction.

This is an example of a statute which is silent on a matter, i.e. restriction from import on arms without a "hunting purpose", but where an agency is granted that authority by way of regulation....

Yes and no. The law also requires that an importer apply for an import license for a firearm, the issuance of which license must be approved by ATF. ATF determine whether or not the importer is entitled to the license based on the statute, and that involves a quasi-judicial determination regarding the application of the statutes to the particular firearm for which the import license is sought.

Administrative agencies like the ATF have quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative functions. Quasi-judicial functions can include things like taking actions to determine if an application for a particular license satisfies the applicable statutory requirements or if a license which has been issued is subject to some sanction because of misconduct by a license. Quasi-legislative functions involve the promulgation of regulations which have the force of law when that promulgation has been authorized by statute and the regulations are promulgated using the proper procedures (e. g., proper public notice and review of public comments).

Quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative actions by administrative agencies are subject to challenge in court.

[Alabama Shooter]

We have no white smoke but there are some more tea leaves coming from the temple:

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...y-tuesday?lite

The vice president, charged to lead the task force in the wake of the Newtown school shooting, said that stakeholder groups have expressed "surprising" support for universal background checks so far, as well as some restrictions on high-capacity magazines.

"There is a surprising -- so far -- recurrence of suggestions that we have universal background checks, not just [to] close the gun show loophole, but total, universal background checks, including private sales," Biden said.

Biden has not yet met with the National Rifle Association, the country's powerful gun lobby and foe of restrictions on gun ownership.

Continuing a series of meetings with stakeholders in the gun debate, Biden was scheduled to meet later Thursday with gun owners' groups -- including the NRA -- as well as entertainment industry representatives.

Asked what he intended to discuss with pro-gun representatives, Biden said simply "oh, we're going to talk about all the things that I've talked about here."

Maybe not "quite" like the antis talked about them.

Why are the antis demands surprising?

[Moby]

OK, it is happening....time to act yet?

I wish people would wait till at least an idea was proposed. Speculating on what the President might do, when he hasn't even proposed anything yet, seems pointless to me too.


WHAT ARE YOU DOING ABOUT THIS????
NON, it is not just speculation.

We all know how politics work. Joe Biden floating the idea of executive orders to change gun laws in this country. This is to gage just how much opposition to the idea there is. If we do not react by calling and writting our representatives it will come to pass.

If you have not CALLED, and WRITTEN to your representatives do not complain when you lose your rights!
I urge EVERYONE OF YOU to call and write your Senators and Congressman both state and federal to voice your opinion about dictatorial decrees eroding America’s rights. The more Obama gets away with the more he will take from you. DEMAND congressional backbone.
Contact your representatives here. PLEASE, do not put t his off, DO IT!!!
If you wait…it may be too late! Do not think everyone else will do it. So far they haven’t!

http://whoismyrepresentative.com/

[BGutzman]

Short of setting up a tent in my reps yard, Im not sure what more I can do..

[Moby]

I just wrote a letter to both my Senators and my congressman.
Going to write my state representatives now. PLEASE do the same!

[Alabama Shooter]

OK, it is happening....time to act yet?

Given the current context the original post seems almost bemusing now.


ETA:
Now he says there is a "consensus":

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/nationa...6tASjcEO5I6SWM

How do you have a consensus when you only talk to one side?

[Fishing_Cabin]

It seems like they will try to push this hard, but in the end, I am unsure just exactly what they will try to do, but by next tuesday we will probably have a more concrete idea...

Originally Posted by NYTimes.com

Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. will present President Obama with proposals for stemming gun violence by Tuesday, setting in motion legislative and executive actions that will encompass guns, ammunition, mental health services and violent images in popular culture.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/us...-nra.html?_r=0

With all they have discussed restricting, it is the unfortunate, but yet still honest truth, many of the things I have heard them discuss, such as a mag restiction, or an AWB, will have a small impact, if any, on crime. I say that because the last stats I stumbled on today from 2011 listed deaths by rifles as 323. Im sure that since assault rifles are a smaller part of the rifle catagory, the number of deaths by assault rifle would be a good bit lower then the 323 listed for the entire catagory of rifle. The majority of the deaths were statistically by handguns, at 6220, but that also is skewed because many of these criminals who committed the murders included in the stat were more then likely (article doesnt break it down) intercity deaths related to criminal activity, by those repeat offenders that are already banned from owning firearms, but seldom prosecuted when they are found in possession of one, due to the plea bargin process.

Its interesting to note as well, that the same article listed knives as 1694 deaths, and hands,feet, etc, as to have caused 726 deaths, both of which are considerably larger then the number of deaths by rifles in general.

I feel fairly certain, that until the government decides to get tough on criminal use or possession of firearms, the crime rate will remain similar. Why? These crimies are not generally comited by those law abiding firearm owners who follow the law and would be subject to more restrictions, so the more restrictions on the law abiding, will have no effect on the criminals.

Source for the stats I used: http://www.inquisitr.com/467102/hamm...tats-for-2011/

[Grizz12]

On "The Five" tonight they reported that in the past 19 years firearm ownership has almost doubled and violent crimes have gone down.

[Daugherty16]

FishingCabin, you've hit on a big part of the intellectual dishonesty of the banners. While shocking, abhorrent and vile, the attack at Sandy Hook, or at Columbine, was still a very rare event. The media plays it up, over and over, and together with the shock value the sheer repetition cements it into people's minds that these are a frequent, exigent problem that requires immediate action.

Ok, but more than 10 times as many people drown annually than are killed by rifles of any kind. i'd wager that of the 4000 drownings, a high percentage are children. But nobody is rallying to eradicate swimming pools. More than twice as many are killed by hands and feet, but nobody wants to ban karate lessons. So the uproar certainly isn't about the number of dead, or even that they were children. As Rahm said, never let a good crisis go to waste.

The final piece is: our legislators, by and large, are generally well educated and intelligent, not stupid people. They know that criminals don't obey the laws, by definition and by action. They KNOW that more gun laws will only affect the law-abiding, not the guy who buys his stolen Glock from the trunk of Vladimir's (insert gang name of choice) car. And they don't care. They forge ahead blithely, perpetuating the myth that more laws will somehow stop crazed maniacs. It's the agenda, stupid (not you of course, just borrowing the phrase... )

That is intellectual dishonesty.

[sig220mwxxxx]

I personally can't "get behind" any type of gun control proposal. Any gun control is an infringement. Whether or not criminals own guns is immaterial. Whether or not law abiding citizens do is what matters. I am near retirement age and I know that once the anti-gun crowd gets something they want from us they then consider it "a good strart" and then go for more. I have been watching these people for too long to trust them. The dishonesty in the reporting of these incidents should be enough for any of you to realize the true intention of these people. When we brought up "fast and furious" and talked about the innocent people being killed in Mexico they had the nerve to say that republicans or conservatives didn't give a damn about innocent Mexicans being killed, they were just after the President. These are first and foremost POLITICAL CONTROL JUNKIES and honesly believe that we are all a bunch of hayseeds that need their guidance and control in order to live through the day. They don't want to allow us any control over our lives because they don't like the choices many of us make.