The Firing Line Forums

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old December 21, 2012, 01:04 AM   #51
jason_iowa
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 30, 2011
Posts: 686
The UN treaty would do nothing to gun ownership in the US. Unless you are getting your guns from an illegal source in which case you are not following the law anyway. The NRA uses this as a fundraiser but it has no basis in reality. Tin foil hat stuff.

There will be a push for gun control but nothing will pass its political suicide for to many politicians on both sides. All that the anti's have accomplished is to sell a heck of a lot of guns, ammo and magazines making tons of money for the gun companies.
jason_iowa is offline  
Old December 21, 2012, 01:40 AM   #52
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 2,089
Quote:
There will be a push for gun control but nothing will pass its political suicide for to many politicians on both sides.
Sometimes I just want to scream and yell at me TV when I read this kinda of stuff

20 children are DEAD as much as you and I know the man did this and not the gun . This was a game changer , if it wasn't the shelves would still be full of all kinds of AR stuff . I sure hope I'm wrong but on this one I don't think so .
__________________
As of this date 8-18-14 at 6:42am I became a proud grandfather I guess I'm officially old

Last edited by Metal god; December 21, 2012 at 12:30 PM.
Metal god is offline  
Old December 21, 2012, 08:23 AM   #53
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,630
Quote:
The NRA uses this as a fundraiser but it has no basis in reality. Tin foil hat stuff.
At this point, there is a chance of something getting passed. It's slim, but if the right pressure is applied to the right politicians, something could come of it.

In any case, this is a thread about Executive Orders. If we want to discuss potential legislation in the wake of Sandy Hook, there are other threads open for that.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old December 21, 2012, 10:41 AM   #54
Double J
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 12, 2007
Location: So. Illinois
Posts: 547
We'll have to wait a few days to see what the Chicago politician can or can't do. But so far the term "legal" really hasn't been an issue of concern for him. Sounds like a bad re-play of Illinois law on steroids. We keep saying they can't take that or do that, but they do anyway.
Double J is offline  
Old December 21, 2012, 10:49 AM   #55
wingman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 20, 2002
Posts: 2,077
Quote:
We keep saying they can't take that or do that, but they do anyway.
Agree, while this is not the time to panic we must expect anything from this administration prior to the past 4 years I was naive in thinking we had some safe guards built in but I see that is not true.

One thing I suggest is joining the NRA and/or any second amendment group, money talks the Hollywood left pours money into DC and very little is done in curbing violent movies/video games so folks in the shooting sport need to open the wallets(money talks) and support our hobby big time.
wingman is offline  
Old December 21, 2012, 11:35 AM   #56
Kimio
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2011
Location: Utah
Posts: 925
I've already sent off my letters to my respective reps in congress and such. I plan on trying to join the NRA as soon as possible as well. This is something I'll definitely be fight for.
Kimio is offline  
Old December 21, 2012, 11:55 AM   #57
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimio
...I plan on trying to join the NRA as soon as possible as well....
I believe that you can do it right this very second on-line.
__________________
"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 21, 2012, 08:16 PM   #58
Justice06RR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 21, 2010
Location: Central FL
Posts: 1,285
I'm not as familiar with EO's, but as I understand it after reading Tom's original post, Obama can enact legislation that further makes the current gun laws stricter.

I'm thinking since there's already a high-cap ban in certain states like CA, he will attempt to expand it nationwide.

He may also make background checks mandatory for every firearm sale including private sales. This would be tough but if caught, they will institute some sort of punishment/fine/jailtime.

Another is by possibly taxing or raising prices on ammo and mags, and limiting ammo purchases i.e. 6boxes of ammo per person at a time.

This is all speculation of course. I'm no expert but I had a in-depth discussion with my brother-in-law who just finished law school and he gave me the finer points of an EO.
Justice06RR is offline  
Old December 21, 2012, 08:25 PM   #59
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justice06RR
...Obama can enact legislation that further makes the current gun laws stricter.

I'm thinking since there's already a high-cap ban in certain states like CA, he will attempt to expand it nationwide.

He may also make background checks mandatory for every firearm sale including private sales. This would be tough but if caught, they will institute some sort of punishment/fine/jailtime.

Another is by possibly taxing or raising prices on ammo and mags, and limiting ammo purchases i.e. 6boxes of ammo per person at a time...
Absolutely none of that can be done by Executive Order.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justice06RR
...This is all speculation of course. I'm no expert but I had a in-depth discussion with my brother-in-law who just finished law school and he gave me the finer points of an EO...
If you got the impression from your brother that Obama could do all that by Executive Order, either you didn't fully understand your brother or he needs a bit more education on Executive Orders.

BTW, I finished law school over 35 years ago and practiced law for more than thirty years, until I retired in 2007.
__________________
"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 21, 2012, 10:05 PM   #60
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,630
Quote:
as I understand it after reading Tom's original post, Obama can enact legislation that further makes the current gun laws stricter.
That's the opposite of what I said. I mean, the total opposite. All he can do is direct stricter enforcement of current laws.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old December 28, 2012, 12:04 PM   #61
Hal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 7,445
Quote:
That's the opposite of what I said. I mean, the total opposite. All he can do is direct stricter enforcement of current laws.
Ok - please follow with me here..

Suppose the "impossible" were to happen and Feinstien get's her abomination passed.
Now, an unknown number of semi auto firearms fall under the NFA tax, which appears to be set at $200.00 by :
Title 26 › Subtitle E › Chapter 53 › Subchapter A › Part II › § 5811
of the US code.

Could not an executive order then be used to modify the $200.00 tax and raise it to ~ $3,500.00?

carguychris pointed out in the other thread:
"FWIW according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, $200 in 1934 dollars is equal to $3,436 in 2012 dollars"

I can even see where something along that line would make it past a SC challange.

FWIW - I don't see this presently having a snowballs chance of happening.
I'm just wondering if it's a legal use of an EO and would it fall under the guidelines?
Hal is offline  
Old December 28, 2012, 12:41 PM   #62
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hal
...Could not an executive order then be used to modify the $200.00 tax and raise it to ~ $3,500.00?...
You apparently haven't been paying attention to this thread. The answer is "no." The amount of the tax can only be changed by Congress amending the statute.
__________________
"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 28, 2012, 01:00 PM   #63
Hal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 7,445
Frank - despite the fact that I believe your one of the rudest people on this forum, I thank you for the answer.

For the life of me, I can't understand exactly what your problem is...
Is it possible for you to give a civil answer to a question without being an a-hole about it first?
Hal is offline  
Old December 28, 2012, 01:21 PM   #64
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hal
Frank - despite the fact that I believe your one of the rudest people on this forum, I thank you for the answer.

For the life of me, I can't understand exactly what your problem is...
Is it possible for you to give a civil answer to a question without being an a-hole about it first?
Yes I am blunt. However, the limitations on the scope of Executive Orders were discussed in this thread in posts 1, 17, 19, 21, 23, 26, 32, 33, 37, 44, 59, and 60; and all those posts effectively answered the question you posed in post 61.
__________________
"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 28, 2012, 01:43 PM   #65
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,659
I would not think that the primary threat to the pertinent civil liberty would come in the form of an executive order. The latitude available for abuse by way of new legislation would be much greater.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Ettin
Yes I am blunt.
Frank, I did not read him accusing you of being blunt.

Quote:
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.

***

You apparently haven't been paying attention to this thread. The answer is "no." The amount of the tax can only be changed by Congress amending the statute.
The utility of an attorney on the internet, as in real life, rests in helping laymen understand the law. Responding to what appeared to be good-faith questions from a layman with brittle hostility is not blunt; it is just impolite.

As to the matter of executive orders during World War II and the exclusion orders applied against some populations, it is true that the court upheld the government action in Korematsu and that the authority of the executive to issue an executive order was not in itself at issue. It would also be reasonable for a layman to read that decision and be impressed by the extent of the handwringing in which the court engaged on its way to upholding the government.
zukiphile is offline  
Old December 28, 2012, 02:51 PM   #66
Cascade1911
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2011
Location: Dutchess County, NY
Posts: 450
FDA review of tobacco products grinds to a halt

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...ducts/1767043/

Not really an executive order but I can imagine similar tactics being employed against gun and ammo manufacturers through the offices of OSHA or a similar organization.
Cascade1911 is offline  
Old December 28, 2012, 03:19 PM   #67
Frank Ettin
Staff
 
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 6,919
Quote:
Originally Posted by zukiphile
...The utility of an attorney on the internet, as in real life, rests in helping laymen understand the law. Responding to what appeared to be good-faith questions from a layman with brittle hostility is not blunt; it is just impolite....
Fair enough. And I admit that I run out of patience quickly when something has already been addressed.
__________________
"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 28, 2012, 08:31 PM   #68
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,129
The POTUS has rather wide latitude in the interpretation, implementation and enforcement of existing law.

Contrary to popular belief and contrary to the rantings of various political entertainers; the POTUS may not make new law by executive order, trickery or hocus pocus.

Last edited by thallub; December 28, 2012 at 08:36 PM.
thallub is offline  
Old January 8, 2013, 11:58 PM   #69
Come and take it.
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 16, 2009
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 999
From my understanding

Obama has no power to levy any kind of ammo tax or limit of ammo purchase

and one question

Can an executive order restrict importation of firearms and ammunition?
Come and take it. is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 02:44 AM   #70
Kimio
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2011
Location: Utah
Posts: 925
I thought that's what the Clinton ban also prohibited. Am I wrong?
Kimio is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 08:43 AM   #71
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
The "Clinton AWB" was passed by Congress and signed by Clinton, IE a law, not an Executive Order.
MLeake is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 12:28 PM   #72
musher
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 23, 2005
Posts: 439
Quote:
Can an executive order restrict importation of firearms and ammunition
Certainly, this is what the bush import ban did. It relied on a reinterpretation of the meaning of existing law.

In that case, it was a stricter interpretation of the meaning of "sporting purposes"
musher is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 12:50 PM   #73
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
Not trying to be sensational here, but I see there is again an active discussion in the media of Obama using executive order in addition to laws passed.. I tried to see if this was a new statement or just a rehash of the same old same old... I was not able to find a new statement on it so maybe its just a rehash..

For myself "IF" executive order was used for such a thing I think the courts would strike it fast, we cannot have a dictator style order, which is effectively what such a order would be if it was not a interpretation of law. Much to wait and see about and not too worked up about but writing and calling or reps is certainly a great idea... If nothing else, I think this particular discussion shows clearly the level of fear concerning how our current system is working....

I think its important that we are not blindly fearful... Be active, educate and participate, don't panic over a executive order that's not written and in reality cannot stand on its own merit; if it was written as some new law... We have checks and balances for a reason and no office has unlimited power..
__________________
Molon Labe
BGutzman is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 12:53 PM   #74
JWT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 16, 2007
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 3,194
According to news reports, Biden has suggested that the Administration is considering using an Executive order to get additional gun controls. At the same time he's saying Congressional action is needed.
JWT is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 01:03 PM   #75
bird_dog
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 26, 2004
Posts: 222
Quote:
According to news reports, Biden has suggested that the Administration is considering using an Executive order to get additional gun controls. At the same time he's saying Congressional action is needed.
I just read the same thing -- linked from Drudge. Scary, but for now I'm considering the source and taking a deep breath. Biden isn't known for following the Obama talking points.
bird_dog 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 07:08 AM.


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 0.14586 seconds with 7 queries