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

A pro-2A Executive Order?

Discussion in 'Activism Discussion and Planning' started by leadcounsel, Jun 15, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. leadcounsel

    leadcounsel member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    5,365
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA
    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.
     
  2. Solo Flyer

    Solo Flyer member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2008
    Messages:
    581
    Sounds very good.But would there be anything to stop the next McCain or Obama administration from reversing Bush's executive order?
     
  3. Navy joe

    Navy joe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,362
    Location:
    VA
    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.
     
  4. NC Dave

    NC Dave Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2008
    Messages:
    68
    Location:
    Cary, NC
    I'll second that.
     
  5. Matt King

    Matt King Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,151
    Location:
    USA
    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
     
  6. hoji

    hoji Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2004
    Messages:
    665
    Location:
    Texas
    You mean the GW Bush who stated he would sign a new AWB? That President Bush?:what:


    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH:scrutiny:
     
  7. Mike OTDP

    Mike OTDP Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2007
    Messages:
    1,677
    Location:
    Somewhere in Maryland
    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).
     
  8. Kentak

    Kentak Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,467
    Location:
    Ohio
    Executive orders are un-democratic in the sense that they circumvent the representatives of the people, douchebags 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
     
  9. esq_stu

    esq_stu Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    966
    Location:
    Michigan
    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.
     
  10. noeyedeer

    noeyedeer Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    22
    As was posted earlier. GW Bush has said he will sign an AWB.
     
  11. TexasRifleman

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    18,302
    Location:
    Ft. Worth
    In some kind of bizarre "secret handshake club", Presidents don't generally reverse EO's from those before them.

    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.
     
  12. Harve Curry

    Harve Curry Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,756
    Location:
    Black Range of New Mexico
    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.
     
  13. bogie

    bogie Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    9,569
    Location:
    St. Louis, in the Don't Show Me state
    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.
     
  14. Rugerlvr

    Rugerlvr Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,145
    Location:
    Utah
    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.
     
  15. ilbob

    ilbob Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    10,892
    Location:
    Illinois
    It is reasonable for the president to refuse to enforce an unconstitutional law.

    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.

     
  16. ilbob

    ilbob Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    10,892
    Location:
    Illinois
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2008
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page