The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old November 15, 2012, 09:36 AM   #26
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,125
An executive order may be nullified:

1. By SCOTUS.
2. By a 2/3 vote of congress.
3. By another executive order. Presidents may supercede or nullify executive orders of their predecessors. Case in point: See Obama executive order 13491 revoking Bush II executive order 13440.

Last edited by thallub; November 15, 2012 at 09:56 AM.
thallub is offline  
Old November 15, 2012, 10:08 AM   #27
2damnold4this
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2009
Location: Athens, Georgia
Posts: 1,401
Quote:
Actually, there was never an executive order in 1989. The ATF had already banned 43 guns from importation, and the President allowed that ban to stand.

Never said there was an executive order in 1989 w/regards to firearms. It is, however, a clear example of executive power being used for the purpose of gun control. If the Obama Administration uses executive power to implement more gun control measures than it already has, I suspect it would follow the examples set by previous Presidents.
2damnold4this is offline  
Old November 15, 2012, 10:10 AM   #28
jmortimer
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
Last I checked, BHO was at about 138 EOs. Bush was around 280 for 8 years and Clinton was around 360 and FDR was about 10x that at around 3,500 EOs. Absent another mass shooting, I would expect other issues to occupy BHO for the immediate future.
jmortimer is offline  
Old November 20, 2012, 08:08 AM   #29
Hal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 7,445
Quote:
and an Executive Order must be constitutional
EO 6102 and EO 9066 sort of punch a hole in that idea don't they?

Taking away a person's private property (gold) under threat of fine and imprisonment and hauling people off to interment camps sort of goes against the Constitution.
Hal is offline  
Old November 20, 2012, 08:27 AM   #30
baddarryl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 29, 2011
Location: Cape Fear!
Posts: 1,070
Imagine if they calculated how much damage an EO could do in the short term, the amount of time it would take to get through the courts, and even if there was the political will of the courts to take up such an issue? Case in point: the recent immigrant amnesty order. Has anyone even questioned the legality of it? Even if they did, the political will in this country won't back overturning it. I could easily see the POTUS rolling the dice on this one too.
baddarryl is offline  
Old November 20, 2012, 01:17 PM   #31
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 2,787
Quote:
Has anyone even questioned the legality of it? Even if they did, the political will in this country won't back overturning it. I could easily see the POTUS rolling the dice on this one too
It is an interesting question based on the current climate in Washington.

If an EO was issued that was not technically an outright AWB, but a set of very restrictive regulations would there be enough people motivated to challenge it? Yes, obviously there would be some, but many are more motivated right now to seem more conciliatory in the eyes of the public. Even though most people support the 2A I could see groups manipulating public opinion to the point that even many pro 2A politicians feel the best strategy might be to just let something like this go.
__________________
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
BarryLee is offline  
Old November 20, 2012, 01:39 PM   #32
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by baddaryl
Case in point: the recent immigrant amnesty order.
A couple of points.

There was no Executive Order concerning illegal immigrants. DHS Secretary Napolitano issued a memorandum to the Border Patrol, Immigration Service, and ICE with guidance on how to treat certain illegal immigrants.

There was no amnesty (or pardon) for illegal immigrants. The DHS memo states that it is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion under existing laws to temporarily defer removal proceedings. And, like other situations (i.e. refugees or political asylum seekers) in which aliens are allowed to stay in the country temporarily, the aliens are allowed to legally get a job (better they pay for their upkeep than the txpayers).
gc70 is offline  
Old November 20, 2012, 02:09 PM   #33
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,608
Quote:
If an EO was issued that was not technically an outright AWB, but a set of very restrictive regulations would there be enough people motivated to challenge it?
An executive order can't be used to create regulations. That would be a blatantly unconstitutional use of a power that's only implied by the Constitution in the first place. Presidents know this, and even if they were tempted, they've got a cadre of advisors who'd counsel them against abusing it.

That's kind of the point of this thread.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old November 20, 2012, 02:45 PM   #34
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,899
Quote:
Quote:
and an Executive Order must be constitutional
EO 6102 and EO 9066 sort of punch a hole in that idea don't they?...
Nope. The issue is who decides if an Executive Order is unconstitutional. And here's a hint: it's not you.

The question of constitutionality is one for the court. You might have an opinion, but your opinion doesn't really count. The opinions of courts on such things will affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. Yours will not.

Note also that something could be a bad idea or bad policy and still be constitutional.
__________________
"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
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old November 20, 2012, 02:55 PM   #35
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 2,787
Quote:
An executive order can't be used to create regulations.
Sorry, I guess I did not make my point very well.

The point I was attempting to make is that there may not be a lot of motivation from traditional allies of the Second Amendment to fight any additional restrictions regardless of what mechanism is used to implement them. I think we all know any outright ban is very unlikely, but attempts at the ambiguous “reasonable restriction” are almost inevitable.
__________________
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
BarryLee is offline  
Old November 20, 2012, 02:59 PM   #36
Hal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 7,445
Quote:
Nope. The issue is who decides if an Executive Order is unconstitutional. And here's a hint: it's not you.
Thanks for the somewhat snotty reply...
Hal is offline  
Old November 20, 2012, 02:59 PM   #37
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hal
EO 6102 and EO 9066 sort of punch a hole in that idea don't they?
Executive Order 6102 (entitled "Requiring Gold Coin, Gold Bullion and Gold Certificates to Be Delivered to the Government") was based on the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, which provided:

Quote:
During the time of war or during any other period of national emergency declared by the President, the President may (A) investigate, regulate, or prohibit, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit or payments between, by, through, or to any banking institution, and the importing, exporting, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion, currency or securities
EO 6102 defined how much gold could be held before it constituted "hoarding" and what would be done with the excess.
gc70 is offline  
Old November 20, 2012, 03:50 PM   #38
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,899
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hal
Quote:
Nope. The issue is who decides if an Executive Order is unconstitutional. And here's a hint: it's not you.
Thanks for the somewhat snotty reply...
Folks toss around "it's unconstitutional" far too casually whenever they think something the government has done is wrong, unwise, bad policy or they just don't like it. As you might have noticed, I don't have a lot of patience with that.

The United States Supreme Court ruling that something is unconstitutional has a great deal of meaning. A federal court of appeal ruling that something is unconstitutional has significant meaning. Someone opining that a court should fine something to be unconstitutional and making a well supported and reasoned argument as to why can have real meaning, depending on the qualifications of the person opining. But a simple "that's unconstitutional" doesn't mean anything.
__________________
"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
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old November 20, 2012, 06:31 PM   #39
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,125
Quote:
But a simple "that's unconstitutional" doesn't mean anything.
Thats the bottom line.

i hear "its not constitutional" often these days. Never heard that very much until a few years ago: Maybe at age 73, i've not lived long enough.
thallub is offline  
Old November 21, 2012, 07:16 AM   #40
baddarryl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 29, 2011
Location: Cape Fear!
Posts: 1,070
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by baddaryl
Case in point: the recent immigrant amnesty order.
A couple of points.

There was no Executive Order concerning illegal immigrants. DHS Secretary Napolitano issued a memorandum to the Border Patrol, Immigration Service, and ICE with guidance on how to treat certain illegal immigrants.

There was no amnesty (or pardon) for illegal immigrants. The DHS memo states that it is an exercise of prosecutorial discretion under existing laws to temporarily defer removal proceedings. And, like other situations (i.e. refugees or political asylum seekers) in which aliens are allowed to stay in the country temporarily, the aliens are allowed to legally get a job (better they pay for their upkeep than the txpayers).
Ok, thanks for the clarification.
baddarryl is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 04:13 PM   #41
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 2,084
My executive order thread just got closed and I was told to come over here .

Reading all these post from a month ago is kinda funny . Would any of you like to clairify your last post now . OH what a difference 30 days makes .

Back to the question I had in the other thread

Quote:
It has to be an adjustment to a current law that is in effect, an Executive order cannot create a new law, all it does is clarify and makes adjustments to how said laws are to be executed. At least that is how I understand it.

I'm sure there is a law out there that can be adjusted to do just what they want . I don't know much about it but what about the original federal gun legislation making it illegal to own firearms that are full auto and barrels under 16" . Can they just piggy back someting on to that law ?

This is all going to come down to wording and how the wording is interpreted . My guess is they will try to get what ever law past they can and let the NRA fight it in court .
__________________
As of this date 8-18-14 at 6:42am I became a proud grandfather I guess I'm officially old
Metal god is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 05:16 PM   #42
Silent Bob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2005
Posts: 288
Holder is now saying Obama may begin EOs to institute gun control measures:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/eric-h...rticle/2516519
__________________
"Remember, the people on the Internet are just like you - ignorant, delusional, and dangerous."
Silent Bob is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 07:52 PM   #43
hermannr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
IMHO: what we will see is an NFA34 type situation...TAX (revenue yoiu know) the P out of ALL firearms...just low enough to keep the Supremes from saying the TAX infringes...but high enough to be a burden.
hermannr is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 08:09 PM   #44
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,899
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silent Bob
Holder is now saying Obama may begin EOs to institute gun control measures...
Actually what Holder is quoted as saying is:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holder
The Obama administration will consider executive actions and specific proposals for legislation as part of its gun policy response...
That's pretty vague.

The legal reality is that there are limits to what a President can do with Executive Orders, and some of those limits have been discussed in this thread. It's quite possible that as part of implementing the Administration's evolving gun control agenda there will be directions given to ATF, which directions could fall within the scope of things that may be done by Executive Order.

But the fact remains that Executive Orders may not make or change laws or regulations.
__________________
"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
Frank Ettin is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 11:13 PM   #45
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,608
All he's done so far is appoint a blue-ribbon panel. Referring things to ad hoc committees and panels is a sure-fire way to look like you've done something when you really don't want to do something.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 11:21 PM   #46
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 2,084
Quote:
committees and panels is a sure-fire way to look like you've done something when you really don't want to do something.
Although that is often how it works I sure hope your right on this one . I say welcome to the bullet button fellas , at the very least .
__________________
As of this date 8-18-14 at 6:42am I became a proud grandfather I guess I'm officially old
Metal god is offline  
Old December 20, 2012, 11:34 PM   #47
egor20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 14, 2010
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 1,762
Quote:
All he's done so far is appoint a blue-ribbon panel. Referring things to ad hoc committees and panels is a sure-fire way to look like you've done something when you really don't want to do something.
The quote of the day for me was over on the British online paper the Daily Mail

"Now that Vice President Biden has been appointed to the Anti-Violence committee he will no doubt have the NRA disbanded within the next 6 months. This will come as quite a surprise to the National Restaurant Association although.
__________________
Chief stall mucker and grain chef

Country don't mean dumb.
Steven King. The Stand
egor20 is offline  
Old December 21, 2012, 12:04 AM   #48
Xfire68
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2010
Location: Communist State of IL.
Posts: 1,428
Posted by Tom Servo:
Quote:
The possibility of any new gun control laws passing through the legislature is almost nil.
Why is it that so many people are so worried about bans and regulations if your statement is accurate and I sure am hopeful it is?

I hear some reports that this is just more of the same empty threats of gun control and others that we should be very concerned about what they will be able to get pushed through because of the currant climate knee jerk reaction flu the folks in Washington seem to be catching.

I have to say I am more then a bit confused as to what is going to or what can or can not happen in the next coming months?
__________________
NRA Life Member, SAF Member

www.aac300blackoutbrass.com A Veteran owned Business.
Xfire68 is offline  
Old December 21, 2012, 12:20 AM   #49
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,608
Quote:
Why is it that so many people are so worried about bans and regulations if your statement is accurate and I sure am hopeful it is?
Well, it was very accurate when I wrote it. After last Friday, it's slightly less accurate, but I still don't see the votes for new gun control measures.

At this point, it's worth making some phone calls and sending some letters to your congresscritters, just to be sure their heads are still on straight.

After all, they've got a panel. Panels ask questions. Then they print up reports. Then they...you know, I've got no idea what they do after that, because that's usually the end of it.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old December 21, 2012, 12:43 AM   #50
Xfire68
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2010
Location: Communist State of IL.
Posts: 1,428
I see Tom I did not pay attention to the date of your original post.

Yes lets hope that the right people are still using their heads.

I will be sending letters this weekend to those "Critters".
__________________
NRA Life Member, SAF Member

www.aac300blackoutbrass.com A Veteran owned Business.
Xfire68 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15295 seconds with 7 queries