Executive Order


PDA






jorb
November 12, 2008, 05:18 PM
I am ignorant. Can a President negate all CCW Permits via Executive order?
Can he/she ban "assault weapons via executive order?

If you enjoyed reading about "Executive Order" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Jeff White
November 12, 2008, 05:35 PM
No! Despite all of Podesta's cute comments about stroke of the pen, law of the land, executive orders are really just directives given to the agencies controlled by the executive branch on how they are to do their jobs. In cases like paying for stem cell research and closing most of Utah to oil exploration (the two executive orders recently mentioned) all they do is instruct whatever executive branch agencies that disburse money for research to allow federal funds to be spent on embryonic stem cell research and the Department of the Interior not to issue permits for oil exploration in Utah.

He couldn't order the end of CCW because there is no federal CCW and it's not overseen by any federal agencies under the control of the executive branch. He also couldn't order the BATFE to enforce the old AWB because the law giving them that authority expired in 2004.

jorb
November 12, 2008, 05:41 PM
Jeff: Thanks. That takes a load off my feeble, old mind.

7.62X25mm
November 12, 2008, 05:48 PM
"You damned right I have a permit! It's call the Bill of Rights." -- Ted Nugent

CoRoMo
November 12, 2008, 05:56 PM
Hey... that's my signature!:D:D:D:D:D:D

Sinixstar
November 12, 2008, 05:56 PM
Also - it's worth noting that executive orders CANNOT create law. Laws must be created by the legislative branch of government. That means no executive orders banning the sale of certain weapons. That would in effect be a new law - and would not be allowed. Executive order cannot repeal laws either.

Executive orders are simply a clarification as to the way policy or legislation is to be enacted and carried out. The order it's self must exist within the spirit and definition of the law.

Seenterman
November 12, 2008, 06:04 PM
So would the 500% tax increase also NOT be able to be implimented through an Executive Order?

Or does that fall under IRS jurisdiction or something?

Thats the big one im worrying about.

SoCalShooter
November 12, 2008, 06:12 PM
I am hard pressed to see how he could possibly put a 500% increase and specifically single out and persecute one industry completely because that will definitely hurt the military and LE and other agencies that need guns and ammo and gear.

Sinixstar
November 12, 2008, 06:21 PM
So would the 500% tax increase also NOT be able to be implimented through an Executive Order?

Or does that fall under IRS jurisdiction or something?

Thats the big one im worrying about.


That one's iffy.
It depends on a few things - mainly the current wording of any legislation that imposes a federal tax on Ammo. If the law is written such that the level of tax is left to the discretion of a governing body - and allows for that governing body to adjust the tax rate without approval - then yes, he could.

For the most part, when taxes are levied on products like that - it's done so in a very very specific and clearly defined fashion. The exact rate, the exact definition of products that are effected, the time limits, sunset clauses, etc etc are all written to be bullet proof. Not by chance - to prevent a situation exactly as you described. I would be very surprised if the laws were written in a way that would allow that.

Ala Dan
November 12, 2008, 06:21 PM
I have a valid "Handgun License", for in Sweet
Home Alabama we don't refer to them as "permits"~! :eek:

Sinixstar
November 12, 2008, 06:26 PM
I am hard pressed to see how he could possibly put a 500% increase and specifically single out and persecute one industry completely because that will definitely hurt the military and LE and other agencies that need guns and ammo and gear.


Na - there's exemptions and all sorts of stuff to get around that. What you would see is tax-exempt LE and Military production lines.

everallm
November 12, 2008, 06:28 PM
An EO instructing the IRS/Treasury Dept to raise taxes on ammunition COULD fly initially as there is already existing legislation around said taxation in place.

However, it would kick off a really ugly fight not just from the pro-firearms side but also the House as tax legislation is their bailiwick not the Executive.

I imagine the SAF/NRA would also try and get a suit rolling with the intent of getting that on the SC's calendar ASAP via a lawsuit based on punitive taxation around a Constitutional right.

This could also have a nasty (for the Executive) side effect of limiting just what the President can do via an EO.

All downside, no upside

damien
November 12, 2008, 06:31 PM
The Federal Excise Tax on guns and ammo is codified in 26 U.S.C. 4181 and 4182. The percentage is set in stone (it's 10% or 11%).

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/26/subtitles/d/chapters/32/subchapters/d/parts/iii/sections/section_4181.html
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/26/subtitles/d/chapters/32/subchapters/d/parts/iii/sections/section_4182.html

Section 4181

There is hereby imposed upon the sale by the manufacturer,
producer, or importer of the following articles a tax equivalent to
the specified percent of the price for which so sold:
Articles taxable at 10 percent -
Pistols.
Revolvers.
Articles taxable at 11 percent -
Firearms (other than pistols and revolvers).
Shells, and cartridges.

Section 4182

(a) Machine guns and short barrelled firearms
The tax imposed by section 4181 shall not apply to any firearm on
which the tax provided by section 5811 has been paid.
(b) Sales to defense department
No firearms, pistols, revolvers, shells, and cartridges purchased
with funds appropriated for the military department shall be
subject to any tax imposed on the sale or transfer of such
articles.
(c) Records
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 922(b)(5) and 923(g)
of title 18, United States Code, no person holding a Federal
license under chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, shall be
required to record the name, address, or other information about
the purchaser of shotgun ammunition, ammunition suitable for use
only in rifles generally available in commerce, or component parts
for the aforesaid types of ammunition.


Congress made it, only Congress can change it. The law gives the president precisely 0% discretion on this.

Sinixstar
November 12, 2008, 06:33 PM
An EO instructing the IRS/Treasury Dept to raise taxes on ammunition COULD fly initially as there is already existing legislation around said taxation in place.

However, it would kick off a really ugly fight not just from the pro-firearms side but also the House as tax legislation is their bailiwick not the Executive.

I imagine the SAF/NRA would also try and get a suit rolling with the intent of getting that on the SC's calendar ASAP via a lawsuit based on punitive taxation around a Constitutional right.

This could also have a nasty (for the Executive) side effect of limiting just what the President can do via an EO.

All downside, no upside


The tricky part about it - is the current administration has taken a pretty wide interpretation of executive orders and signing statements. There is an argument that could be made for precedent. It would be a rough position to defend, and ultimately would not be worth the fight. Like you said,, all downside, no upside.

Also as you said - the house is pretty protective of their little kingdom. As such - they tend to write policies that can not easily be modified by executive order, least of all tax policy.

damien
November 12, 2008, 06:40 PM
The tricky part about it - is the current administration has taken a pretty wide interpretation of executive orders and signing statements. There is an argument that could be made for precedent. It would be a rough position to defend, and ultimately would not be worth the fight. Like you said,, all downside, no upside.

As wide as the Bush administration has interpreted EOs, they have never said that the president can change a tax rate that Congress has set as a matter of law. Remember Bush having to work with Congress on the income tax rates? He had to, he has no discretion to set tax rates unless Congress has delegated them, and they have never delegated the ability for the President to set income tax rates or the FET on guns and ammo either. Obama won't even try this. If he did, administration would lose in every federal court they hit until the eventual 9-0 loss in the Supreme Court. Tax rates not delegated to the President cannot be set by the president, period.

He has to go to Congress on this one.

ilbob
November 12, 2008, 07:47 PM
i am ignorant. Can a President negate all CCW Permits via Executive order? Can he/she ban "assault weapons via executive order?

The answer to this question is fairly simple. He has no legal authority to do so.

In practice, its unlikely he would make such a bold step, but he might take some baby steps.

For instance, he could possibly by executive order declare all federal property to be a gun free zone. Or he might order the BATFE to inspect/harass all gun dealers weekly. Would make it very hard to sell guns.

We could spend a lot of time and money fighting such orders that would better be spent elsewhere.

You have to remember two things about Obama. One is that he is a committed radical socialist. Second, that he is a Chicago style thug politician. The only thing that will restrain him is what he thinks he can get away with. We will have to be extra vigilant the next four years.

One might think that at least some democrats would take umbrage at any serious failure to respect the rule of law, but you just never really know. Most have gone along quite meekly with the many grossly unconstitutional behaviors of the federal government. I suspect most would quite happily accept just about any abomination he might put forth in exchange for say "free" healthcare.

Lone_Gunman
November 12, 2008, 08:22 PM
There are certain firearms that the president can ban importation of by executive order. He could direct the BATF to change its definition of what constitutes a sporting firearm, for example. He could do this is in such a way as to forbid importation of semiautos like SKS and AK rifles.

ServiceSoon
November 12, 2008, 09:17 PM
There are certain firearms that the president can ban importation of by executive order. He could direct the BATF to change its definition of what constitutes a sporting firearm, for example. He could do this is in such a way as to forbid importation of semiautos like SKS and AK rifles.I heard Bill Clintion created an EO banning the importation of certain firearms. Based on what I am hearing here how can that happen? EO's can't be legally used to create law, they can only be used to give directives to federal agencies and only if congress has given that agency the power the EO ask the federal agency to exercise.

What is important is to start contacting your representatives about how they would vote on such measures.

salthouse
November 12, 2008, 09:30 PM
I may be wrong, but I think an EO could be used like this- "Block distribution of federal highway money to states that allow ccw." Which clearly allows the states to have CCW, but the price is too high for any of them to do it. (extortion)
I'm not certain this is an option, but I think it might be.

Bubba613
November 12, 2008, 09:50 PM
The Feds could not do that with an EO. But they could pass such a law, and have in the case of 21 yr old drinking age and 55MPH in the past.

But legal CCW holders constitute about 3% of the voters in any state with it. That's 3% very committed potentially angry tax paying voters.

And if they did, how many people would stop carrying? For a while I was between permits (they had my application but were slow to process it and the old one expired). I didnt care, I carried anyway. I have been asked for mine zero times in 9 years.

Lone_Gunman
November 12, 2008, 10:01 PM
Based on what I am hearing here how can that happen? EO's can't be legally used to create law, they can only be used to give directives to federal agencies and only if congress has given that agency the power the EO ask the federal agency to exercise.


The laws that allow the ATF to regulate firearm importation are already written, and some discretion is given to the ATF to determine what firearms can and cannot be imported. The "sporting purposes" interpretation is part of what lets the ATF do this.

It is up to the president to set the guidelines the ATF uses. I believe, for example, that it would be legal for a president to ban importation of all semi autos, or any other particular weapon class, if he so chose. This could legally be done as I understand it using the Executive Order. The laws that allow the ATF to regulate importation are already written, and the chief executive has latitude in determining how to best enforce the law.. If I am wrong, I hope someone will enlighten me.

Audrey
November 12, 2008, 10:31 PM
Do not delude yourself.

In "emergency" situations, which are deemed as such at the whim of the executive, FEMA runs the show. BATFE or any other "federal administrative agency" can and will be ordered to follow the EO; and they may or may not contract with private firms (Blackwater anyone?).

Surprisingly, the bankers and their low-level minions (Paulson, Bernanke et al) are getting away with it so it just might not be necessary to confiscate. Why cause a stir if noone is willing to use what they have? I bet they were looking over their shoulders when they put the key in their locks at home the first few days of the financial realignment ...

Baaaaaa

WardenWolf
November 13, 2008, 03:41 AM
An executive order MIGHT be able to order the ATF to enforce their existing directives in a particular way, though. Such as ordering them to patrol ranges and seize any firearms that are not 922(r) compliant, for example. Or ordering them to interpret their rules in a particular way. Or maybe reclassifying a certain type of firearm to a category that requires registration.

Mike U.
November 13, 2008, 04:21 AM
Thank you, Jeff White, for clarifying the scope of an EO. I've read somewhere that an EO could do just that.
I can sleep a little easier tonight.

Now, I have an ignorance question.

Didn't the Heller Decision effectively negate any need for a firearm to have a "sporting purpose"?

The 2nd Amendment isn't there just for hunters, after all.

everallm
November 13, 2008, 08:06 AM
Mike,

In one word NO, explanation below.....

A number of folks have at best skimmed the Heller decision, cherry picked the sections that support their wishes, hopes, desires and/or prejudices and skipped over the rest.......

All of the amendments of the Bill of Rights have some legislative hedging and cannot be taken as absolute and unfettered. Freedom of speech and the yelling of "fire" in a crowded theatre is the one brought up but fails to explain fully.

You will always have the ability and right to yell "Fire" (freedom of speech)but will have to bear the legislative, legal and civil consequences IN CONTEXT. If there is actually a fire then no issues you are being a good citizen, if there isn't and due to your actions, there is inconvenience, injury or other losses then you bear the consequences of your actions.

Ditto if there was no fire but you are aware that there is a suicide bomber about to enter the building and this is the only way to save lives. Situation, context, actions, results, consequences.

Now with the Heller case the decision was about a very specific and tailored issue, purely about an outright ban of new, the registration and restrictions of "grandfathered", of a single class of firearm, in DC and the associated storage laws.

It was further complicated with DC's status as a federal enclave with limited self rule.

The SC, in general, when they make any ruling typically keep it very narrow, very specific and only in context of the original suit and it's impact on constitutional law.

Because this was the first real attempt to take a stab at 2A since before Miller , the SC actually went further than strictly necessary to lay a framework for further activity around 2A.

When an SC justice says words like

The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms.

It does NOT mean the SC are fully supporting and casting in stone these prohibitions, it means they are not ruling on it as it was not in the remit of the original suit.

As it was the SC went further than strictly required to answer the suit as they specifically stated that 2A is an individual right and completely divorced the militia and comma nonsense from 2A. This was not necessary for the ruling but was a bonus.

Now, the SC has stated categorically that 2A is an individual right and has the same duties and prerogatives and limitations as the rest of the Bill of Rights. However it did not lay out, AS IT WAS NOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL CASE, levels of scrutiny as it did not and could not say the 2A was incorporated at this point.

It is inherently implied by the rulings but not defined as the case was not a states right issues but a "Federal enclave" due to Washington's peculiar status. It was an example of strict ruling by the SC about DC, not states, to be decided later as incorporation of 2A was not part of the original suit.

This issue will have to be answered via the Chicago or Califonia (Nordyke) suits and will first cast 2A as incorporated and then lay the groundwork on scrutiny. It will then be extraordinarily difficult for the SC to lay down any level of scrutiny that is less than that applied to the other BoR amendments. This is going to be a nasty little grenade to defuse and they passed on bundling this as part of Heller.

IMHO this was weasel wording to make sure that Kennedy stayed on board

alsaqr
November 13, 2008, 08:20 AM
I heard Bill Clintion created an EO banning the importation of certain firearms.

Yes, he did do that. Bush I also did that. Neither of these executive orders have been rescinded by Bush II.

salthouse
November 13, 2008, 09:40 AM
Everything you ever wanted to know about issued executive orders- http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/ Some interesting stuff in there.

expvideo
November 13, 2008, 10:01 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am ignorant. Can a President negate all CCW Permits via Executive order?
Can he/she ban "assault weapons via executive order?

He's president, not king. The problem is that he might think that he is king, and try to do this. Hopefully I'm not alone in saying that we as Americans would not stand for the president doing something like that. I hope for all of our sake that Obama doesn't do anything stupid that's going to start a civil war. But then again, we've gotten to a point in this country where the government can do anything they want, because the people aren't willing to stand up against it. I'm sure Obama could disassemble congress and the supreme court and claim control of the government and people still wouldn't do anything but complain. Welcome to the new America, or as I like to call it, France.

divemedic
November 13, 2008, 10:12 AM
No, but an EO that orders the NICS to stop providing information would shut down firearm sales at FFLs pretty much nationwide.

Bubba613
November 13, 2008, 11:23 AM
Except that would be illegal.

Thin Black Line
November 13, 2008, 02:28 PM
How many secret EOs are there already?

K3
November 13, 2008, 02:50 PM
How many secret EOs are there already?

If they're secret, how would we know?

*I* know...

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill ya. :evil:

divemedic
November 13, 2008, 04:51 PM
Except that would be illegal.

Not anymore illegal than the Bush41 EO that prevented certain firearm importations.

An Obama EO ordering the NICS unit to stop answering the phone would be similar, wouldn't it?

MGshaggy
November 13, 2008, 05:14 PM
An Obama EO ordering the NICS unit to stop answering the phone would be similar, wouldn't it?

And exactly what purpose would that serve? People would get their gun in 3 days anyway if NICS doesn't respond.

18 USC 922(t)(1) Beginning on the date that is 30 days after the Attorney General notifies licensees under section 103(d) of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act that the national instant criminal background check system is established, a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer shall not transfer a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, unless—

(A) before the completion of the transfer, the licensee contacts the national instant criminal background check system established under section 103 of that Act;
(B) (i) the system provides the licensee with a unique identification number; or (ii) 3 business days (meaning a day on which State offices are open) have elapsed since the licensee contacted the system, and the system has not notified the licensee that the receipt of a firearm by such other person would violate subsection (g) or (n) of this section

Mike U.
November 13, 2008, 06:28 PM
Thank you very much, everallm.
I appreciate all the work you put into that post. WOW!
Now I feel I have a much better grasp of the Heller Decision and what it entailed.

ilbob
November 13, 2008, 06:39 PM
Not anymore illegal than the Bush41 EO that prevented certain firearm importations.
That was not illegal since it was well within his scope of executive authority.

ilbob
November 13, 2008, 06:42 PM
An Obama EO ordering the NICS unit to stop answering the phone would be similar, wouldn't it?

And exactly what purpose would that serve? People would get their gun in 3 days anyway if NICS doesn't respond.

18 USC 922(t)(1) Beginning on the date that is 30 days after the Attorney General notifies licensees under section 103(d) of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act that the national instant criminal background check system is established, a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer shall not transfer a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, unless—

(A) before the completion of the transfer, the licensee contacts the national instant criminal background check system established under section 103 of that Act;
(B) (i) the system provides the licensee with a unique identification number; or (ii) 3 business days (meaning a day on which State offices are open) have elapsed since the licensee contacted the system, and the system has not notified the licensee that the receipt of a firearm by such other person would violate subsection (g) or (n) of this section

If the NICS bureau took their phones off the hook, you would not be able to contact them. Obviously this would be a serious abuse of power, but IMO if they refused to answer the phones no lawful sales of firearms could occur until the courts intervened. That could take years.

There is no question that an evil president could do all kinds of damage if he was willing to take the political heat for it. There is also little question about whether BHO is evil or not. The question is whether he is willing to take the heat. My guess is he will start out trying to get congress to shield him from the heat.

divemedic
November 13, 2008, 07:08 PM
And exactly what purpose would that serve? People would get their gun in 3 days anyway if NICS doesn't respond.

Not really. The law says that the sale is approved 3 days after the licensee contacts the NICS. If the NICS doesn't answer the phone, there has been no contact.

Look, I am not saying that this is the route an EO would take, because Obama can think of some really inventive ways to do this. All I am saying is that EO's are directives from the Chief Executive to Federal departments. I am sure ATF can think of ways to make this happen with a creative EO.

MGshaggy
November 13, 2008, 08:01 PM
Not really. The law says that the sale is approved 3 days after the licensee contacts the NICS. If the NICS doesn't answer the phone, there has been no contact.

And if the government has procured the unavailability of the system by means of an EO ordering such, the government cannot simultaneously claim the system was available, working, and should/could have been contacted, nor could they claim it was an occurence beyond their control such as a failure of the telecoms. IOW, if the government abandons their duties under the law, it would be an uphill battle to hold dealers or individuals liable for non-compliance with an abandoned system. Further, if the system is not operating (as it would not be if an EO caused it to not receive calls), the dealer can still transfer the firearm pursuant to 18 USC 922(t)(5).

Additionally, there are a number of states that don't use NICS, but have opted to use their own state system. An EO would not cover that.

divemedic
November 13, 2008, 10:14 PM
And if the government has procured the unavailability of the system by means of an EO ordering such, the government cannot simultaneously claim the system was available, working, and should/could have been contacted, nor could they claim it was an occurence beyond their control such as a failure of the telecoms.

I agree with you, but how long do you think that argument will take to make it through the courts? 3 years? 4? 5? and what laws do you think can be passed in the meantime?

The EO gives the Obama administration an immediate result, to be backed up by legislation at a later date.

MGshaggy
November 13, 2008, 10:29 PM
I agree with you, but how long do you think that argument will take to make it through the courts? 3 years? 4? 5? and what laws do you think can be passed in the meantime?

Not long, since the minute a dealer would transfer a firearm without the check the government would probably want to make a move. Such a case would start in federal court where a TRO could issue, forcing the government to act quickly. Moreover I doubt the government would want to risk such a tremendous loss, since its highly doubtful they could prevail besed upon those facts. Still, its worth noting that the chance of this actually happening is, well... nil.

Of course if this is really a concern to you, you may as well also tighten down the chinstrap on the tinfoil helmet and worry that the government could institute a $.01 per gun annual tax in the tax code, but not provide a form to report and pay, so all gun owners would instantly become felons by tax evasion. I mean, its just as plausable...in theory. :rolleyes:

stampsm
November 13, 2008, 10:30 PM
Not really. The law says that the sale is approved 3 days after the licensee contacts the NICS. If the NICS doesn't answer the phone, there has been no contact.

Look, I am not saying that this is the route an EO would take, because Obama can think of some really inventive ways to do this. All I am saying is that EO's are directives from the Chief Executive to Federal departments. I am sure ATF can think of ways to make this happen with a creative EO.

there are other ways to contact. it does not state that it has to be a phone contact. i would just send a certified letter to the office that handles this stuff. that could be considered contacting the system the second that letter is received. then there is a chance even if they see that it should be denied that they could not reply by mail within 3 days to deny it. if they were to call the store and deny it then you got them on the phone and proceed to initiate another contact for another customer. the second you say on the phone to the person over the ncis "i have an application for you to review" that is contacting them. if they hang up you still contacted them.


a store that did this would probably get checked (raided) by an BATF officer the next day, but you might be able to get a legal picture perfect case to challenge the system if they claimed you violated the law doing this.

divemedic
November 14, 2008, 08:01 AM
Of course if this is really a concern to you, you may as well also tighten down the chinstrap on the tinfoil helmet and worry that the government could institute a $.01 per gun annual tax in the tax code, but not provide a form to report and pay, so all gun owners would instantly become felons by tax evasion. I mean, its just as plausable...in theory.

All I was trying to point out was that there are ways in which an Obama administration could use an EO to affect gun control. Don't think it can't happen. Maybe not the specific EO I talked about, but using an EO for gun control is possible. Instituting a tax on firearms is also possible, but could not be done by EO, which is the topic of this thread.

Calling me names and trying to attack me personally is rather low road. I will keep quiet on the rest of my comments, so as to avoid getting the thread locked.

Thin Black Line
November 14, 2008, 08:26 AM
If they're secret, how would we know?

Right. And there are already secret EOs "on the books". It amuses me how
ppl here keep going on and on about the "legality" of an open source EO,
but they wouldn't be able to put a secret EO under public scrutiny.

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill ya.

No. If you were on the inside, it would ruin your career and you'd go to jail.
Most ppl can't violate this by stuffing classified documents in their pants,
walk out of a building with them, get caught, and somehow not go to jail and
still retain their security clearance. [And who was that person I'm referring
to, class? Anyone know, class? Ah, yes, the crickets are still chirping....]

All the next president has to do is make a secret EO involving "small arms
and domestic terrorists" and use the mechanisms already in place. Average
Joe Shmo Six-Pack only notices that certain things just aren't on the shelves
anymore. He shrugs his shoulders, says there must be a "shortage" and off
he goes to do whatever else in his life. Given the coming economy, that
will probably mean standing in line for filing for unemployment or a soup
kitchen rather than going to the range anyway.

I mentioned this before: certain imported semi-auto firearms have been
banned by a previous prez, it's no problem to ban imported mil ammo. Try
spending a day at the range when x39/x51/x54 is $30/box, your mortgage
just reset and you're facing a lay-off next year. Most people are going to
be begging the nanny-state to "fix" things for them next year. ;)

And that doesn't even have to be done with a secret EO anyway.

So why all the posturing on this thread about the supposed "legality" anyway?
Someone mentioned elsewhere on THR that we didn't get where we are today
because gun-owners weren't energized, it was everyone else who was more
focused on other things. IMHO, perception of retaining their "rights" was
very low on the list.

MAKster
November 14, 2008, 10:28 AM
The President cannot make a new law through Executive Order. Executive Orders are new regulatory interpretations of existing statutes. For example, the President could sign an executive order further restricting the importation of foreign-made firearms because the "sporting purpose" provision already exists in the Gun Control Act of 1968. The President is just adding a new regulation to a authority that already exists.

MGshaggy
November 14, 2008, 11:26 AM
Calling me names and trying to attack me personally is rather low road.

Oh please...

It wasn't a personal attack; it was a lighthearted attempt, however ineloquent, to point out that this scenario (Obama issuing an EO to shut down the NICS system in an attempt to put an end to gun sales) is about as far fetched and improbable as you can get. I certainly didn't mean to offend you, and if you took offense I do apologize. I'll admit I do enjoy arguing the theoretical issues for a bit, but I'd rank this with a national confiscation of all guns, re-education camps, and zombie attacks in terms of the probability of actually happening.

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