|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
June 18, 2012, 12:32 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 3,946
|
Executive Orders & Gun Rights
Often I hear people say that a President can not restrict gun rights because the Congress would never pass these laws. This is always used by firearms enthusiast who vote for an anti-gun candidate for the White House. I personally have always accepted this and felt pretty comfortable that the Congress most likely would not pass any major anti-gun legislation. However, recently I noted some of the Executive Orders that have been issued and this got me wondering if a President could issue an executive order for instance reducing magazine capacities, banning “assault rifles”, restricting concealed carry or other restrictions.
So, for those of you that are more students of the Constitution than I could a President issue such executive orders?
__________________
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 |
June 18, 2012, 01:20 AM | #2 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,846
|
Already been done
First Bush banned importation of certain semi auto rifles, by executive order, if I remember correctly. Thats when those funny "thumbhole" stocks showed up, to make the legal criteria for import.
Now,could the Pres just order what you suggested? He could, but would run into a lot of flak from the legal folks, all over. Not the least of which would be Congress, who is very jealous of their power in this area. The Pres can order almost anything, even suspension of the Constitution and martial law. Whether the order gets to stand, or even be carried out depends on many things, especially what, who, and where it affects.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
June 18, 2012, 06:18 AM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
Its very doubtful that any president would ban guns by executive order. The president need not do that. The BATFE has wide latitude under the the GCA 1968 to regulate guns that are deemed to have no "sporting purpose". Despite this glaring anti-gun "loophole" in the GCA 1968 our 2nd Amendment "supporters" in congress have no stomach for revising that law.
The first administration to ban the importation of a long gun under the "sporting purposes" clause of the GCA 1968 was headed by "the gunowners champion", Ronald Reagan. In 1984 the Reagan BATFE banned a South African shotgun from import. In 1986 the Reagan BATFE banned another semi-auto shotgun from import. BTW: After he left office, Reagan joined Carter, Ford and Clinton in shilling for the "assault weapons" ban. Last edited by thallub; June 18, 2012 at 08:00 AM. |
June 18, 2012, 08:50 AM | #4 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 8, 2001
Location: Forestburg, Montague Cnty, TX
Posts: 12,717
|
Quote:
__________________
"If you look through your scope and see your shoe, aim higher." -- said to me by my 11 year old daughter before going out for hogs 8/13/2011 My Hunting Videos https://www.youtube.com/user/HornHillRange |
|
June 18, 2012, 09:50 AM | #5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
|
On Martial Law and suspension of the Constitution the SCOTUS ruled in Milligan
Quote:
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war. |
|
June 18, 2012, 10:25 AM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Beware politics.
Stick to the technical legal issue and past precedents and events.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
June 18, 2012, 12:32 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 3,946
|
Sorry if my OP was not clear I realize that in times of emergency the President has wide latitude to implement restrictions. I was really thinking of a more normal environment and not a time of significant national emergency. Also, I was not really referring to the actual banning of guns, but lesser restrictions like magazine capacity or carry restrictions. Basically if an order could be issued to simply execute a policy change that the Congress would not implement.
I suppose the general consensus seems to be that although unlikely a President could legally issue executive orders restricting the Second Amendment.
__________________
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 |
June 18, 2012, 03:22 PM | #8 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
It should be mentioned that Executive Orders are not used to make laws. They are generally used to clarify or affect enforcement.
The Supreme Court has overruled over-reaching orders in the past, and I doubt Congress would react very warmly to them either. To that end, Presidents are usually pretty conscientious about citing particular laws that support a given order. If I were in the Oval Office, and I wanted to pass an order restricting the 2A in some way, I'd have a hard time finding laws that back me.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
June 18, 2012, 03:28 PM | #9 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
As far as what the President can legally accomplish by Executive Order, he may only use Executive Orders to implement authority that has been delegated to him by Congress (via law) or that was delegated to him by the Constitution.
From a Second Amendment perspective, one continuing problem has been that the 1968 Gun Control Act bans many firearms from importation and/or manufacture if they are deemed "not suitable for sporting purposes." However, Congress has never defined that term and has left the decision on whether they are suitable for sporting purposes up to the Secretary of Treasury/Attorney General (pre-Department of Homeland Security/post-DHS). To use an example everyone here can understand, any firearm with a bore of greater than 0.50" is considered a Destructive Device and must be registered under the 1934 NFA the same as a Machinegun or Suppressor, UNLESS the Attorney General determines it "particularly suitable for sporting purposes." So basically, the Attorney General has the power to arbitrarily declare any shotgun, imported or domestically manufactured, a "Destructive Device." Congress doesn't need to pass any laws to do this; they already passed the law delegating such authority in 1968. And the ATF has subsequently used that authority to ban several shotguns. More alarmingly, under this Administration, the ATF submitted a proposal for a "sporting purposes test" for shotguns that would have turned tens of thousands of domestically-manufactured shotguns into NFA weapons. That kind of overreach would almost certainly provoke a response from Congress; however, it is much easier to keep legislation from passing Congress than it is to pass a new bill - so it could prove difficult for Congress to revoke or clarify their "sporting purposes" language should that happen. This is but one more reason why killing that clause in any way possible should be a high-priority. Quote:
Last edited by Bartholomew Roberts; June 18, 2012 at 03:35 PM. |
|
June 18, 2012, 03:49 PM | #10 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
This will not direct link. See page 129: johndschultz.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/atf-rulings.pdf Last edited by thallub; June 18, 2012 at 05:00 PM. |
|||
June 18, 2012, 05:06 PM | #11 | |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
According to the ATF's own rulings, those shotguns were classified as Destructive Devices by ATF Ruling 94-1 and 94-2, and not during the Reagan era (see Page 146 of the PDF linked above).
The ATF did classify the following semi-automatic pistols and pistol-caliber "rifles" as NFA firearms during the Reagan era: KG-9 (Ruling 82-2), SM10, SM11A1, and SAC (Ruling 82-8), YAC Sten Mk III (Ruling 83-5). However, all of those classifications were based on defining said firearms as machineguns rather than relying on the sporting purposes clause. If you look at this list of ATF Rulings: (http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/) the only rulings covering importation of firearms issued during the Reagan Administration are 80-8 (Applications to import non-sporting firearms for LE use; must include LE purchase order), 81-3(Importation of firearms of U. S. Citizens acquired abroad), 85-2 (NFA weapons imported for LE samples must have some LE purpose) and 85-10 (Frames and receivers alone of C&R weapons are not eligible for C&R importation). Senator Craig's staff's research aside, the first example I can find of the sporting purposes clause being used to deny importation of a firearm based on the sporting purposes clause is Ruling 69-309 which among other things explains that military service members may not import rifles and shotguns which are of surplus military origin and must meet the sporting purposes requirement. I see we are both typing at the same time... Quote:
It may be that Senator Craig's staff have access to a Private Letter Ruling from the ATF; which is basically when you have a question on legality and write the ATF requesting an opinion on what you are about to do. The letter is good only for the recipient and those rulings are unpublished - which would make it near impossible to find unless the guy who received it decided to self-publish. |
|
June 18, 2012, 05:16 PM | #12 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
Read BATFE ruling 94-2:
Quote:
Nothing links. Google up ATF ruling 94-2: Select the BAFTE link: Last edited by thallub; June 18, 2012 at 05:44 PM. |
|
June 18, 2012, 05:58 PM | #13 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Based on the description of the ruling as a "letter-ruling", I would guess that is a private letter ruling denying importation.
|
June 18, 2012, 06:19 PM | #14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
Quote:
http://battlefield.wikia.com/wiki/NeoStead_2000 |
|
|
|