1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Executive Order

Discussion in 'Legal' started by jorb, Nov 12, 2008.

  1. jorb

    jorb Well-Known Member

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

    Jeff White Moderator Staff Member

    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.
  3. jorb

    jorb Well-Known Member

    Jeff: Thanks. That takes a load off my feeble, old mind.
  4. 7.62X25mm

    7.62X25mm member

    "You damned right I have a permit! It's call the Bill of Rights." -- Ted Nugent
  5. CoRoMo

    CoRoMo Well-Known Member

    Hey... that's my signature!:D:D:D:D:D:D
  6. Sinixstar

    Sinixstar member

    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.
  7. Seenterman

    Seenterman Well-Known Member

    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.
  8. SoCalShooter

    SoCalShooter Well-Known Member

    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.
  9. Sinixstar

    Sinixstar member

    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.
  10. Ala Dan

    Ala Dan Member in memoriam

    I have a valid "Handgun License", for in Sweet
    Home Alabama we don't refer to them as "permits"~! :eek:
  11. Sinixstar

    Sinixstar member

    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.
  12. everallm

    everallm Well-Known Member

    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
  13. damien

    damien Well-Known Member

    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%).


    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 -
    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
    (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.
  14. Sinixstar

    Sinixstar member

    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.
  15. damien

    damien Well-Known Member

    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.
  16. ilbob

    ilbob Well-Known Member

    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.
  17. Lone_Gunman

    Lone_Gunman Well-Known Member

    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.
  18. ServiceSoon

    ServiceSoon Well-Known Member

    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.
  19. salthouse

    salthouse Well-Known Member

    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.
  20. Bubba613

    Bubba613 member

    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.

Share This Page