January 9, 2013, 01:21 PM | #76 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
January 9, 2013, 01:21 PM | #77 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 6, 2012
Location: Lakewood, CO
Posts: 1,057
|
Yes, Biden has suggested it "Executive action ... can be taken," The president has been vauge, he did say he "Would use his executive powers"
Some of have vocalized our fear of such actions, and been criticized for even thinking it. Here we have the ececutive branch actually threatening it.
__________________
NRA Lifetime Member Since 1999 "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials." George Mason |
January 9, 2013, 01:46 PM | #78 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
|
Here is what I was looking for:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ns_694984.html Still Executive Orders have limits...
__________________
Molon Labe |
January 9, 2013, 01:51 PM | #79 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 27, 2005
Posts: 288
|
I think the White House is beginning to realize that any gun control legislation is going to become mired in Congress, and are beginning to abandon that approach in favor of the "quick fix" of an EO. The question is what can Obama do via EO, for now I have heard talk of EOs to strengthen NICS checks, force states to send mental health records to NICS, track gun transfers through a database (sounds like registration), and stiffen penalties for those carrying guns in school no gun zones (idiots). I suppose it is possible he may try to stop imports of guns and ammunition.
However, Obama has grown increasingly imperial-sounding in his tone since the Fiscal Cliff Postponement with pronouncements that he is through debating the debt ceiling, etc. and I could see him issuing some royal and far-reaching EO that while illegal and could be challenged, will be a direct declaration of war against law-abiding gun owners.
__________________
"Remember, the people on the Internet are just like you - ignorant, delusional, and dangerous." |
January 9, 2013, 01:55 PM | #80 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 23, 2005
Posts: 462
|
Quote:
My point, which was obviously not made clearly, was that the 1989 ban was a result of an Executive branch 'reevaluation' of existing law (the 1968 GCA). The ban was imposed based on this reevaluation of whether military style semi-autos had a sporting purpose. Bush never signed an EO (that I know of) to accomplish this, but my point is that such an action would be well within the power of an EO, since it happened entirely within the Executive branch. Sorry I wasn't more clear. |
|
January 9, 2013, 02:18 PM | #81 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2009
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 999
|
To break this down further.
What about semi-automatics that still get imported such as the springfield xd series of pistols, the gsg .22 semi-auto rifles, saiga rifles and shotguns etc.? Also would non-gun material be subject to tightening of the importation ban through executive order? such as parts kits that are utilized and placed onto american made recievers. ---------------------------- Also Russian, Ukranian and various Balkans manufacturers of ammunition. Could these under existing law be banned from import? |
January 9, 2013, 03:54 PM | #82 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 301
|
So what is the point then of Vice President Biden suggesting today that the White House could take unilateral action on gun control, as he kicked off a round of meetings aimed at finding ways to curb gun violence.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...#ixzz2HVXXFzZ6 |
January 9, 2013, 04:04 PM | #83 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 12, 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,315
|
Impure thoughts
Not to interject a fly in the ointment, but isn't the Patriot act still law of the land, and doesn't it suspend much of the "Bill of Rights", and other little fine points such as "habeas corpus". Doesn't this enable such actions as rule by decree, other wise known as executive order. I hope the Patriot Act doesn't become the great irony of our time. I hope they will back away from this line of thought, and appreciate the damage it could cause. I love my country, and I want her back!
|
January 9, 2013, 04:06 PM | #84 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 27, 2012
Posts: 321
|
Sorry Servo; you are wrong!
Obama's executive order creating a path to citizenship for illegal aliens age 30 and under is an example of creating an order that has the force of law. In effect, it is a defacto-law which has not, and likely will not, be challenged by the courts or rejected by Congress via a 2/3rds vote. In addition, gun-grabber Joe Biden publically announced On Wednesday that Obama intends to issue an executive order on gun control. |
January 9, 2013, 04:13 PM | #85 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 23, 2000
Posts: 1,185
|
Quote:
An executive order may be able to direct the ATF to expand some NFA category - they have arbitrary power to expand the categories already available to them. I'm not saying though that this would be an easy or quick path to more gun control. An executive order would be more useful for removing enforcement of an existing gun control law than it would for making new laws. |
|
January 9, 2013, 05:03 PM | #86 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
|
Without getting political.. here's my consideration... Ok lets say tin hat EO is given.... There is no way the SAF nor NRA is going to sit and allow the imposition of a decree that is enacted with the force of a new law... It just isn't going to happen. The fallout would be very bad come re-election and might even lead to the neutering of future EO's in the courts.
__________________
Molon Labe Last edited by BGutzman; January 9, 2013 at 05:15 PM. |
January 9, 2013, 05:09 PM | #87 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 3,944
|
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 |
January 9, 2013, 05:44 PM | #88 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2005
Location: E Tennessee
Posts: 828
|
Quote:
|
|
January 9, 2013, 07:31 PM | #89 |
Junior member
Join Date: October 25, 2012
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 736
|
As much as I don't like the speculation...I don't need the anxiety...there is what officials are legally allowed to do and there is what they can get away with doing.
Not good to jump everytime a gun grabber speaks but equally not good to think they won't trample all over our rights if they can. With such a willingly ignorant electorate and if the courts can be stacked in favor of those who don't respect life and liberty, anything is possible. |
January 9, 2013, 07:43 PM | #90 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 6, 2004
Location: Georgia/Afghanistan
Posts: 314
|
Knowing the how factual our media can be, it was just put out that the POTUS could use an Executive Order to establish national database/registry and improve background checks...we'll see to what extent that really means.
ROCK6 |
January 9, 2013, 08:11 PM | #91 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
A national registry would have to go through Congress. So would any significant change to the background check system. 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.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
January 9, 2013, 09:59 PM | #92 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
An executive order is instruction from the president, as manager of the executive branch, to the administrative units reporting to him regarding the implementation and enforcement of statutes and regulations. As such, it must be consistent with statute or regulation to which it relates. A executive order can not make new law or regulation. Executive orders may be challenged in court for going outside the scope of statute or regulation, or on a question of constitutionality. And there's our "checks and balances."
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
January 9, 2013, 10:16 PM | #93 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 10, 2008
Location: Live Free or Die state
Posts: 259
|
I am not a lawyer or an expert on anything, but do have some experience in the Govt and am writing based on that experience. On that basis:
Seems to me that Executive Orders have a force and effect similar to regulations. As in CFR (Code of Federal Regulations). The simple view is this: most laws are conspicuously vague in the details. The law simply creates an imperative, or defines lawful/unlawful acts, or orders creation of a new program, say. Then the real work starts. The staff of an agency designated to carry out implementation of the law then sits down to interpret and implement said law, and they write the regulations. The regulations regularly exceed the volume of the enacting law by orders of magnitude, so Obamacare, a 2500 page law, should be expected to generate more than 50,000 pages of regulations. The regulations are then published in the Federal Register for public comment for a prescribed period, then the final regulations are issued. In essence, the Regs define the parameters and rules for implementation of the law and unless challenged, they effectively become the law as most people would interpret it. Then from the Regs, an agency creates its policy. In Govt, the doctrine is: policy can be amended or suspended usually at fairly low levels, regs can be waived for good cause but usually only by Director/Secretary/undersecretary level staff, but statutory mandates require an act of congress to set aside. It seems an EO would bypass the whole process of public comment and have the effect of new Regulations. It could alter the implementation of the underlying law, alter the process or procedures used by the agency enforcing the law, but would not itself be a law. It could easily change the list of banned imports, or records retention from NICS checks, create a national registration program, magazine limits, etc. If the EO violates existing statutes it could be set aside if challenged, but... as with the immigration EO directing ICE to stop enforcing sections of putative valid statutory provisions, the limitations in scope of an EO is not well known. And if it goes unchallenged, it basically might as well be the law.
__________________
"To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness... How pathetic." - - Ted Nugent "Cogito, Ergo Armitum Sum" - (I Think, Therefore I Am Armed)- - anon. |
January 9, 2013, 10:33 PM | #94 | |||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|||
January 9, 2013, 10:41 PM | #95 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 21, 2000
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities
Posts: 1,076
|
Quote:
__________________
"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams. |
|
January 9, 2013, 11:20 PM | #96 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 10, 2008
Location: Live Free or Die state
Posts: 259
|
Frank, i sort of thought you were from some of your posts. Appreciate the clarifications. But let me ask - what is to actually prevent an EO from being issued that contravenes an existing statute? And what would be the process for challenging it in court, or is there an administrative review of some sort by the judiciary that would stop it before it was issued?
And you said that an EO can't impose requirements outside the scope of existing statutory or regulatory authority. Agree on the statutory limitation. Are you sure about the regulatory limits? Many regulations take broad license where the statute is silent, in fact by necessity.
__________________
"To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness... How pathetic." - - Ted Nugent "Cogito, Ergo Armitum Sum" - (I Think, Therefore I Am Armed)- - anon. |
January 9, 2013, 11:52 PM | #97 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: January 9, 2013
Posts: 14
|
Quote:
|
|
January 9, 2013, 11:52 PM | #98 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Any executive order is going to be reviewed by legal counsel and will most likely go through an exhaustive vetting and revision process. Even at that, an executive order may sometimes get bounced by a court, but that's a fairly rare event -- primarily because Presidents try not to issue illegal executive orders. Note of course that an executive order (like a regulation or a statute) can be legal and constitutional and still be a bad idea. Then again, you or I might think it's a bad idea, but someone else might thinks it's peachy. Being legal and constitutional is not the same thing as being a good idea. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||||
January 10, 2013, 12:06 AM | #99 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
|
What we know is that we have been told here not to worry, that there is nothing significant that can be accomplished by virtue of executive order. Now we can see what is what. I'm predicting that much more that nothing will be instituted by virtue of executive order and that all the nay-saying will be proved wrong, way wrong.
|
January 10, 2013, 12:23 AM | #100 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 550
|
Legal Scholars:
What about a "Presidential Proclamation", does it carry any legal weight that should concern us? From wiki:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order Presidential proclamation A presidential proclamation "states a condition, declares a law and requires obedience, recognizes an event or triggers the implementation of a law (by recognizing that the circumstances in law have been realized)".[11] Presidents “define” situations or conditions on situations that become legal or economic truth. These orders carry the same force of law as executive orders—the difference between the two is that executive orders are aimed at those inside government while proclamations are aimed at those outside government. The administrative weight of these proclamations is upheld because they are often specifically authorized by congressional statute, making them “delegated unilateral powers”. Presidential proclamations are often dismissed as a practical presidential tool for policy making because of the perception of proclamations as largely ceremonial or symbolic in nature. However, the legal weight of presidential proclamations suggests their importance to presidential governance.[12]
__________________
In my hour of darkness In my time of need Oh Lord grant me vision Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|