A pro-2A Executive Order?


PDA






leadcounsel
June 15, 2008, 02:08 PM
Let's brainstorm on the legacy of pro-2A executive orders that President Bush could pen.

I'm thinking, that, coupled with a positive Heller ruling stating that the 2A is an individual right, President Bush could order that no further restrictions on personal arms can be placed at a Federal level.

The goal is to come up with enough good ideas to write the President for suggestions.

If you enjoyed reading about "A pro-2A Executive Order?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Solo Flyer
June 15, 2008, 05:42 PM
I'm thinking, that, coupled with a positive Heller ruling stating that the 2A is an individual right, President Bush could order that no further restrictions on personal arms can be placed at a Federal level.

Sounds very good.But would there be anything to stop the next McCain or Obama administration from reversing Bush's executive order?

Navy joe
June 15, 2008, 06:08 PM
Any process that can circumvent the workings of a representative republic in your favor can circumvent the same processes to deprive you of fundamental rights. Lets leave making laws to Congress.

Re. Executive Orders:

"Stoke of the pen, law of the land, pretty cool!" -Paul Begala, Clinton scumbag of note.

NC Dave
June 16, 2008, 07:57 PM
Any process that can circumvent the workings of a representative republic in your favor can circumvent the same processes to deprive you of fundamental rights. Lets leave making laws to Congress.

I'll second that.

Matt King
June 16, 2008, 08:04 PM
Can someone explain how executive orders work?
Is it like whatever the president wants automatically becomes law?
Does Congress have any checks on executive orders?

Thanks

hoji
June 16, 2008, 08:18 PM
You mean the GW Bush who stated he would sign a new AWB? That President Bush?:what:


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH:scrutiny:

Mike OTDP
June 16, 2008, 09:18 PM
Obvious ones would be:

1. Reinterpertation of the "sporting purposes" requirement of GCA-68.

2. A 90-day NFA registration amnesty.

3. Issue of import permits for captured German pistols (the Russians have whole warehouses full).

Kentak
June 16, 2008, 09:52 PM
Executive orders are un-democratic in the sense that they circumvent the representatives of the people, ******bags as they may be. I thought the whole purpose of the Revolution was to get out from under the rule of a king. No?

K

esq_stu
June 16, 2008, 10:37 PM
Executive orders are un-democratic in the sense that they circumvent the representatives of the people.
I disagree.

An executive order to a federal agency to not carry out a legislative mandate would not stick. For example, if the President ordered ATF not to inspect FFL dealers or enforce the laws it must enforce, that would not fly (a court could override that). Thus, after a court challenge, no circumvention.

On the other hand, if the President said to ATF, the agency's priority is to go after alcohol first, then explosives, then tobacco, and then exercise discretion not to pick on sloppy paperwork violations but, rather to focus on intentional illegal sales, and by the way, based on facts a, b, and c, the president finds that virtually any imported rifle has or can be converted to sporting use, Congress would probably have to change laws to over come it. It is, IMO a matter of agency focus rather than ignoring the law.

noeyedeer
June 17, 2008, 12:06 AM
As was posted earlier. GW Bush has said he will sign an AWB.

TexasRifleman
June 17, 2008, 12:15 AM
Sounds very good.But would there be anything to stop the next McCain or Obama administration from reversing Bush's executive order?

In some kind of bizarre "secret handshake club", Presidents don't generally reverse EO's from those before them.

Can someone explain how executive orders work?
Is it like whatever the president wants automatically becomes law?
Does Congress have any checks on executive orders?

Executive orders are given to agencies that report up directly to the President, the Executive branch.
They are not law exactly but since the agencies in question work for him they are followed unless Congress specifically passes an actual law to reverse it.

Congress has the ability to pass laws reversing them, so there's your check but it rarely happens.

The Supremes have also ruled a couple of them unconstitutional, thereby reversing them. That rarely happens as well.

Harve Curry
June 17, 2008, 12:28 AM
In GWB's book A FRESH START FOR AMERICA, he writes he's for the AW Ban. GW back in 2000, and like now was the least of the bad choices.

bogie
June 18, 2008, 02:49 AM
You mean the GW Bush who stated he would sign a new AWB? That President Bush?

You mean the GW Bush who made damn sure that the new version NEVER MADE IT TO HIS DESK.

Golly gee, but wasn't anything to sign.

Son, that's called a "flanking maneuver" amongst folks with military backgrounds. NEVER do a frontal charge, unless there are people behind you with machineguns pointed at you.

When enough people vote third party, or just stay home, guess what?

Obama's gonna work to make sure that an assault weapons ban makes it to his desk. And he'll sign it. And you'll be posting here wondering what happened.

Rugerlvr
June 18, 2008, 02:58 PM
An executive order to a federal agency to not carry out a legislative mandate would not stick.

That's why they "invented" the signing statement. Bush has used so many signing statements that legislation has lost a lot of it's bite. Basically anything they don't like gets a signing statement when the Pres signs it into law saying "We interpret this law to mean this..." and then they basically say the executive branch won't be bound by it.

Talk about ruling by fiat. I agree. I thought my ancestors fought a revolution to get rid of the king.

ilbob
June 18, 2008, 03:56 PM
I'm thinking, that, coupled with a positive Heller ruling stating that the 2A is an individual right, President Bush could order that no further restrictions on personal arms can be placed at a Federal level.

It is reasonable for the president to refuse to enforce an unconstitutional law.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Clearly the founders intended that the president abide by the constitition and govern that way. In fact, he is specifically commanded by the constitution to do so.

he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

ilbob
June 18, 2008, 04:08 PM
Executive orders are un-democratic in the sense that they circumvent the representatives of the people, ******bags as they may be. I thought the whole purpose of the Revolution was to get out from under the rule of a king. No?The constitution very clearly gives the executive power to the president. I don't see how any president could possibly govern without being able to issue orders.

Some people have come to the mistaken conclusion that executive orders and signing statements are something GWB invented and that somehow they create new laws. They don't create new laws. They only implement laws enacted by congress. Most of the time laws enacted by congress are so poorly written that there is no way an agency could possibly obey the law without some kind of direction from the president.

If you enjoyed reading about "A pro-2A Executive Order?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!