George P
member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2018
- Messages
- 7,772
So how does this bode well to prevent dictatorial abuse of power? Why doesn't he just sign an EO that bans ALL guns and ammo - period?
So how does this bode well to prevent dictatorial abuse of power? Why doesn't he just sign an EO that bans ALL guns and ammo - period?
He only banned importation of guns from Kalashnikov Concern, hence no more Saigas. Trump banned imports from Molot, hence no more Veprs. Both are to blame.Yeah obama blocked importation of Russian guns. So Russian gun manufacturers moved here.
I love when a not so well thought out plan blows up in their face.
The Tiananmen Square massacre happened in 1989. Clinton didn't take office until 1993. I think he had other motivations for blocking the importation of Chinese weapons.Clinton heavily restricted small arms and ammo imports from China in the wake of Tianenmen Square and those restrictions have remained in place.
Until they then come after them once the foreigners are taken care of.Sadly, this kind of restriction doesn't get a lot of pushback from the U.S. firearm industry because it cuts down their competition.
... Why doesn't he just sign an EO that bans ALL guns and ammo - period?
Why would I be wrong to say, only the federal court system, eventually leading to the SCOTUS, can say that it can’t be done?Because that can't be done by executive order -- which a number of posters have made clear in this thread.
BUT if it takes a few years to go to SCOTUS perhaps - like most things from the government - if they can keep a temporary program in place for a bit it becomes permanent; these dictatorship powers are too disconcertingIn the same way anyone can sue anyone for any reason, a president could make an EO to do anything. In the same way that some lawsuits are pointless, trying to do some things with EOs is pointless.
Yes, it might take going to the Supreme Court to officially get it nullified, but there are some types of EOs that just wouldn't fly--and trying would just make everyone involved look really stupid and incompetent.
Both of which were authorized by underlying legislation.
he Street Sweeper and Stryker 12 were reclassified as destructive devices.
Which can be taken from two viewpoints. One viewpoint says that it cuts competition and therefore creates a false floor for pricing and benefits the arms makers by cutting out the cheap and poorly made guns which would be bought by folks looking only to stick a gun in the nightstand (or cheap throwaway guns for miscreants of all flavors). The other viewpoint is that it creates capacity capability, and skilled labor in the domestic market. Should there be another world war scale military event the US already has weapons and ammunition facilities up and running with skilled labor to finish the guns and maintain production equipment, oh by the way doing so employs several thousand workers and all but guarantees a healthy supply of arms and munitions if they are needed. The small arms popular today are truthfully not far off from military weapons in that the AR15 lines could easily be fooled over to m4 lines, and duty sized pistol lines could simply divert from LEO and Civilian market straight into military procurement. Either of these things can be seen as beneficial. The third way to look at the import restrictions is that it eliminates the cheapest of arms and ammo from being imported, and many will arbitrarily claim that the purpose of that limitation is to make it harder for certain groups to have a means by which to protect themselves (see history for claims of racial, national, sexist, political, religious, or other discrimination by simply raising prices). That last viewpoint is harder to see as beneficial except that it does make the cost ofSadly, this kind of restriction doesn't get a lot of pushback from the U.S. firearm industry because it cuts down their competition.
These were IMPORTS. They decided they failed the "sporting purposes" test for imports and hence were no longer importable shotguns. Since they were no longer importable shotguns and they had a bore diameter exceeding 0.5", they became destructive devices. The SRM 1216 is, I believe, made here, so as a shotgun it doesn't have to pass a sporting purposes test.The Street Sweeper and Stryker 12 were reclassified as destructive devices. Why were
these singled out then and newer high cap rotaries like the SRM 1216 and others left alone?
I guess my question is what’s to stop a president from writing out an EO banning semi auto rifles and signing it, if they did would it not be up to the courts to decide its legality.
However, an executive order cannot exceed or conflict with a law passed by Congress. A president cannot direct an agency to do something it is not allowed to do, nor can he obstruct or impair an agency from doing what they are supposed to do.