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?
Executive orders and gun control
- Thread starter orpington
- Start date
- Status
Ohen Cepel
Member
An importation ban on "evil" (yet to be defined) pistols could be devastating for some brands. I think most Glocks are still made in Austria and Springfield gets all their Xd's from Croatia.
Of course, this could be spun to creating more jobs here as most would find a way to step up manufacturing here ASAP.
Of course, this could be spun to creating more jobs here as most would find a way to step up manufacturing here ASAP.
brunowbe
Member
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.
toivo
Member
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.
George P
member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2018
- Messages
- 7,772
Until they then come after them once the foreigners are taken care of.
Because that can't be done by executive order -- which a number of posters have made clear in this thread.
DeepSouth
Random Guy
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?
I mean, presidents have done stuff by EO that, according to them, they couldn’t do by EO.
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.
In 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.
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.
lilguy
Member
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?
these singled out then and newer high cap rotaries like the SRM 1216 and others left alone?
I haven't dug into the topic very deeply, but here's my take: The rulings on the Street Sweeper and Stryker 12 made them ineligible for import. The SRM 1216 is made in the U.S. and therefore isn't affected by import restrictions.
George P
member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2018
- Messages
- 7,772
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 disconcerting
We can look at the past to see what will happen if a president clearly oversteps authority with an executive action. Or even if they don't overstep but enough people believe they did.
1. There will immediately be legal challenges filed. Immediately=starting as soon as the day after the executive action is enacted.
2. Almost immediately, if there is any merit at all to the challenges--or even if there isn't but a judge of the proper rank can be found who is willing, a temporary restraining order will be issued blocking any further enforcement of the executive action until the legal challenges can be properly evaluated by the courts. Almost immediately=within a week after the executive action is enacted.
3. Within months, assuming there's enough merit to the challenges to allow them to get to the Supreme Court, it can be expected that the Supreme Court will have either agreed to hear the case or not. Within months=perhaps 5 to 7 months after the executive action is enacted.
An excellent example of this is how the Trump travel ban was handled.
Enacted 27 January. Legal challenges filed as soon as 28 January. TRO issued on 31 January. Supreme Court, by June, had agreed to hear the case.
1. There will immediately be legal challenges filed. Immediately=starting as soon as the day after the executive action is enacted.
2. Almost immediately, if there is any merit at all to the challenges--or even if there isn't but a judge of the proper rank can be found who is willing, a temporary restraining order will be issued blocking any further enforcement of the executive action until the legal challenges can be properly evaluated by the courts. Almost immediately=within a week after the executive action is enacted.
3. Within months, assuming there's enough merit to the challenges to allow them to get to the Supreme Court, it can be expected that the Supreme Court will have either agreed to hear the case or not. Within months=perhaps 5 to 7 months after the executive action is enacted.
An excellent example of this is how the Trump travel ban was handled.
Enacted 27 January. Legal challenges filed as soon as 28 January. TRO issued on 31 January. Supreme Court, by June, had agreed to hear the case.
DrDeFab
Member
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2005
- Messages
- 251
True. But neither was overturned and substantial political pressure was applied to the legislative branch. In the gap between the orders and the passing of the supporting laws, the internments and confiscations continued.
In the case of gold ownership, the government paid a fixed $20.67/troy ounce, then raised the price to $35 under the Gold Reserve Act, and pocketed $2.8 billion (in 1934 dollars) in profit. See Exchange Stabilization Fund - Wikipedia
(I'm not speculating on the odds of something similar happening here, just pointing out some extreme cases that make this a complex topic.)
alsaqr
Member
That happened well after those shotguns were banned from import.
Then I would guess that the reason the ruling applies only to those shotguns is because it calls them out by name. I would also guess that if the topic of the SRM 1216 comes up and it has the same characteristics as those two shotguns, it will be classified in the same manner.
WestKentucky
Member
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 of
throwaway guns much more expensive for the aforementioned miscreants who are forced to spend an extra $25 to buy a hi-point instead of a Lorcin.
HankB
Member
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.
wojownik
Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2009
- Messages
- 2,086
An executive order is a tool that directs an agency to do something. It has the force of law with that agency. 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. (OK, in the real world that happens subtly almost every day, but mainly slow rolling policies).
Congress would have to pass a law that would enable a ban on semi-auto rifles.
What could be done by Executive Order?
An EO could order agencies to narrow the interpretation of sporting purposes, and further restrict - or completely halting - imports of parts kits, parts or firearms that don't meet a very narrow definition of "sporting purposes". Say bye-bye to AK kits, spare parts, imported magazines, etc ... That kind of restriction (de facto ban) does have a basis in law (though pushing to the limits), and does not exceed the statutory authority of agencies. Unfortunately.
An EO could direct agencies to start looking at banning additional types of ammo (remember the 2014 ban on 7n6 ammo? And the Obama administration went after M855 2015, but had to pull back only because of Congress and public outcry?). An EO could also restrict imports various types of ammo. Think prices are high now, and ammo scarce?
Off topic for this legal subform is the political constraint. While this current president regularly touts the 1994 AWB (an act of Congress, not an Executive Order), he omits the political blowback that cost his party a significant number of seats, and control of Congress, in the next election. It might not cost them the House, but could swing the Senate back if they push this too far.
Congress would have to pass a law that would enable a ban on semi-auto rifles.
What could be done by Executive Order?
An EO could order agencies to narrow the interpretation of sporting purposes, and further restrict - or completely halting - imports of parts kits, parts or firearms that don't meet a very narrow definition of "sporting purposes". Say bye-bye to AK kits, spare parts, imported magazines, etc ... That kind of restriction (de facto ban) does have a basis in law (though pushing to the limits), and does not exceed the statutory authority of agencies. Unfortunately.
An EO could direct agencies to start looking at banning additional types of ammo (remember the 2014 ban on 7n6 ammo? And the Obama administration went after M855 2015, but had to pull back only because of Congress and public outcry?). An EO could also restrict imports various types of ammo. Think prices are high now, and ammo scarce?
Off topic for this legal subform is the political constraint. While this current president regularly touts the 1994 AWB (an act of Congress, not an Executive Order), he omits the political blowback that cost his party a significant number of seats, and control of Congress, in the next election. It might not cost them the House, but could swing the Senate back if they push this too far.
DeepSouth
Random Guy
I really don’t meant it wrong, but I see no reason why president Biden couldn’t say something to the effect “well the rate of fire for semi-autos is comparable to some full autos and therefore can be regulated under the NFA..... so today I sign this EO yada yada yada.....”
Now I know it’s BS, you know it’s wrong, it can’t be done, it’s illegal, etc, etc. but that wouldn’t matter at all. The only thing would matter at that point is who 5 SCOTUS judges eventually agree with. The facts, legally and everything else are simply irrelevant.
Sure. Just like anyone can sue anyone for anything and if they can get the courts to agree they succeed. But saying it wouldn't matter at all that an executive action oversteps its bounds isn't correct. It would matter a lot.
I provided an example of what can happen if people disagree with an executive action--within days a TRO will be issued to hold up enforcement until it's resolved.
In the case I gave, eventually the Supreme Court upheld the executive action. But even though the challenge didn't have enough merit to succeed, it still stopped anything from happening until the final ruling.
And, yes, of course, SCOTUS is the final authority on the topic. That's how it is, that's how it's always been, that's how it's going to be. Nothing new there.
Is it possible that an overstep with an executive action could make it all the way through the challenges? Sure, it's possible. There are lots of things that are possible. But it's not likely.
I provided an example of what can happen if people disagree with an executive action--within days a TRO will be issued to hold up enforcement until it's resolved.
In the case I gave, eventually the Supreme Court upheld the executive action. But even though the challenge didn't have enough merit to succeed, it still stopped anything from happening until the final ruling.
And, yes, of course, SCOTUS is the final authority on the topic. That's how it is, that's how it's always been, that's how it's going to be. Nothing new there.
Is it possible that an overstep with an executive action could make it all the way through the challenges? Sure, it's possible. There are lots of things that are possible. But it's not likely.
Ignition Override
Member
OP/alfsauve: an astute editorial days ago in a major news network said the same thing.
If the filibuster remains as it now is, with the Senators’ various strengths and weaknesses,
.....there won’t be any Major gun control laws passed.
Nobody can cancel the Midterm elections, which make the WH and “his” slender majorities nervous. This is also a factor in the “Gun Issues” calculations.
“They” can’t afford to go fishing for huge salt water (political) crocodiles, from a really small boat, so to speak.
Plan to vote in the Midterms, but don’t get worked up about this.
——- Switch off the ‘News’, play aviation games on your main computer (learn how to do “deflection” shooting with the P-38’s or ME-109’s 20mm cannon, or learn spin recovery)....go outside.
If the filibuster remains as it now is, with the Senators’ various strengths and weaknesses,
.....there won’t be any Major gun control laws passed.
Nobody can cancel the Midterm elections, which make the WH and “his” slender majorities nervous. This is also a factor in the “Gun Issues” calculations.
“They” can’t afford to go fishing for huge salt water (political) crocodiles, from a really small boat, so to speak.
Plan to vote in the Midterms, but don’t get worked up about this.
——- Switch off the ‘News’, play aviation games on your main computer (learn how to do “deflection” shooting with the P-38’s or ME-109’s 20mm cannon, or learn spin recovery)....go outside.
Last edited:
AlexanderA
Member
Biden could actually ban AR-15s through executive action (in the way that I have outlined before), but it would be a Kamikaze mission. And he knows it. So don't expect anything meaningful to happen.
Tommygunn
Member
Deleted by author.
Ignition Override
Member
AlexanderA : Exactly: "Kamikaze Mission". Perfect expression. Neither our Astute Dear Leader nor his 'non-Alzheimer' handlers seem to be ready for a huge risk.
But look at how many people seem to believe - on any gun forum I scan - that they would easily volunteer for a one-way political mission, no matter how great the risk to the Party.
Why haven't they already done so?
But look at how many people seem to believe - on any gun forum I scan - that they would easily volunteer for a one-way political mission, no matter how great the risk to the Party.
Why haven't they already done so?
- Status