Biden says EO is on the table...

Discussion in 'Legal' started by SilentStalker, Jan 9, 2013.

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

    gunnutery Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2009
    Messages:
    1,682
    Location:
    Iowa
    Personally, resisting/disobeying an EO seems a lot easier than against a law passed by Congress, Senate and then signed into law by the president. So in some way, I'd rather he go that route, have masses, including LE disobey, than have something pushed through Congress like obamacare was. I'm not saying that such legislation would get rammed through, but it's a possibility.

    "Enacting" some anti-gun EO would only prove his arrogance and, in my mind, be reason for impeachment, though I'd have to research that just to make sure it would even qualify.

    He could "clarify" specific rulings for the EPA, CDC, ATF, etc. to adhere to that isn't expressly explained by law. Such as, material bullets are made of like require them to be biodegradable(?). Or perhaps push for the courts to hand down very strict sentencing for a very small violation of gun law, despite a person doing something by accident or without ill-intent. I can't think of other examples right now. Forgive me if my understanding is off.
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2013
  2. 627PCFan

    627PCFan Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2007
    Messages:
    2,152
    Location:
    Sterling, VA
    Can he sign an EO that the ATF will not proccess any NICS Background checks for Semi-Auto Rifles? *edit* until some time in the future-
     
  3. DAP90

    DAP90 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    578
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    I hope he does issue an EO that exceeds his authority. This fight is coming anyway, and since it is I would prefer if the opposition takes an idiotic position.
     
  4. Jim K

    Jim K Member.

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Messages:
    17,847
    Remember George H.W. Bush simply ordered ATF to reject/rescind import approval for AK-47's from China after the CA schoolyard killings. Obama could just close NICS or order ATF not to issue any more FFLs.

    Most government licensing laws are based on the idea that people who want to do something that requires a llicense (drive a car, open a restaurant, etc.) will get a license. And the law usually says what they need to do to get a license (learn to drive, clean the building). But the laws almost never say that if the applicant meets the requirements, the government MUST issue the license. It is assumed by the legislature that the government will act in good faith. But what if the government is of bad faith or simply refuses to act? If a leader thinks that way, and considers the Constitution out dated and void, he may well believe there is no need for further elections. Remember, the Constitution mentions elections; it does not say the government has to provide voting machines, or places to vote, or a means of counting votes. Those are implied, but a bad faith leader can ignore implications.

    Jim
     
  5. Hapworth

    Hapworth Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2011
    Messages:
    370
    More likely he was deliberately not announcing to his opposition precisely what to expect.
     
  6. Sam1911

    Sam1911 Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    34,962
    Location:
    Central PA
    No. That is not a current US law.
     
  7. Billy Shears

    Billy Shears Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2008
    Messages:
    1,004
    That was the impetus behind shall issue carry laws. Before them, almost anywhere you could get a permit, you had to go hat in hand to some official and state your need to have the permit. And it was entirely up to them to issue it or not. Most places it was not. That's what happens when you put some people over others. They will exercise control, and the longer they do it, the more they get to feeling they know what's better for you than you do. That was the whole view of government our constitution was set up to check. Unfortunately, the checks built into the constitution have to be actively maintained and defended. When they're not, when repeated violations (like the ones I mentioned above) go unpunished, those checks erode away, and individual freedoms are stifled.
     
  8. raddiver

    raddiver Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Messages:
    215
    Location:
    Louisville Kentucky
    Thanks for clarification on that Sam. Much appreciated.
     
  9. Navy_Guns

    Navy_Guns Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2006
    Messages:
    500
    The worst part is it would take a new administration to overturn. Yes, it could be challenged and work it's way to the Supreme Court but that takes years. Or Congress could pass a law counteracting it, but it would have to pass House and Senate with 2/3rds or Obama would just veto it.
     
  10. autospike

    autospike Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2005
    Messages:
    205
    Location:
    The Heart of Dixie
    The EOs will be the stick that they threaten us with. The carrot (which I think will be accepted by our spineless politicians) will be a series of laws designed to eventually make owning firearms illegal (or extremely costly and difficult to obtain) for nearly everyone. If they cannot confiscate they will win them through attrition.

    Look for mag bans, taxes on firearms (Nfa type registration), increased initial costs, no private transfer, no transfer to heirs, and disqualifying people with certain things in their medical history (PTSD, visits to mental Health care providers, certain meds, etc.) And of course they will have all that thanks to Obama care.
     
  11. Killian

    Killian Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    251
  12. Hapworth

    Hapworth Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2011
    Messages:
    370
    By issuing an E.O. that in letter pertained to an already extant import law (though in spirit was about firearm restriction).
     
  13. leapfrog

    leapfrog Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2007
    Messages:
    73
    the POTUS taught constutional law and it is no secret he thinks it is worthless,there needs to be some counter talk from maybe the NRA about impeachment.
     
  14. Killian

    Killian Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    251
    So could an E.O. be issued today relating to an import restriction law, or a proliferations of "weapons of mass destruction" law? I'm really not sure how many guns are being imported from overseas nowadays.

    Edit: Also I was wondering if anyone could tell me how the requirement for border state gun dealers to report more than purchases of more than one "assault weapon" per customer came about and was it the result of an executive order or thru some other method?
     
  15. Wyndage

    Wyndage Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    52
    In this respect, Printz v. United States is relevant. The Supreme Court ruled that county sheriffs have the power to decide whether federal gun laws are enforced in their jurisdictions.
     
  16. .45&TKD

    .45&TKD Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,077
    Obama will probably do what George HW Bush did when he banned foreign imports of semiautomatic rifles. Not exactly an Executive Order, but the same effect. And Obama will say, "what's the big deal? Bush did it.".
     
  17. mr.scott

    mr.scott Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    Messages:
    354
    I've probably put myself on the radar, but I have been writing my Congressmen and reps and have told them plainly that any attempt by the government to deprive Americans of their rights will be met with force.
     
  18. Killian

    Killian Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    251
  19. Hapworth

    Hapworth Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2011
    Messages:
    370
    There really isn't grounds for impeachment, and so calling for it -- especially if the NRA did -- both distracts from the Second Amendment issues in play, but also gives the opposition grounds to marginalize gun ownership supporters as irrational.
     
  20. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    An Executive Order can only be used to execute a Constitutionally appointed authority or one delegated by Congress. For example, the Obama administration interpreted a requirement in the 1968 Gun Control Act for FFLs to report such information as the Secretary of the Treasury (now Attorney General) may require as authorizing them to extend the reporting for multiple sales of handguns to semi-auto longguns as well, even though Congress had passed no such law. The court upheld that authority.

    In another example, any firearm with a bore greater than 0.50" is a destructive device (all 12ga shotguns) unless the Attorney General determines it to have a "suitable sporting purpose.". So, many shotguns are particularly open to attack through executive order.
     
  21. skypirate7

    skypirate7 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2006
    Messages:
    147
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    Correct, but EO's aren't a joke either. As long as it is carefully defined, a lot can be done with an EO: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_9066
     
  22. Old Fuff

    Old Fuff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    23,907
    Location:
    Arizona
    Most of what has been mentioned are things he can’t do, or unlikely to stand up if he does. Sam is correct in saying the Executive Order power has been limited by past Supreme Court decisions.

    I expect that if he does anything he will use the “sporting purpose” language in the 1968 GCA to ban importation of guns, gun parts, gun magazines, ammunition and ammunition components that do not meet his view of the “sporting” requirements. He might also order that the military services destroy any surplus ammunition or ammunition components (meaning fired cases) so that they can’t be used.

    But if he goes this route more people (read that to mean “voters”) will be mad, Congress will get more letters that will make new laws more unlikely, and the possibility that his party will face serious losses in the 2014 election will grow.

    Beyond that he can’t do much more, and I’m sure the NRA and others will be in court before the ink is dry on the order.

    And of course, the panic sale of guns, magazines and ammunition will continue and grow even larger. None of these consequences should be particularly attractive to the president – or his Democrat Party.

    One last point that hasn’t been mentioned: Working through the federal court system does take time – sometimes years. However in the beginning a Petitioner (through an attorney) can ask for a stay or injunction to block enforcement of any order until the court has ruled. Unquestionably any legal action that is filed from our side will ask for exactly that – and they might get it.
     
  23. Killian

    Killian Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Messages:
    251
    It would seem that almost ALL guns could be subjected to the "sporting purposes" test. And if found "wanting" could be subject to administrative procedures. Or have I misunderstood?
     
  24. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    The sporting purposes test applies only where Congress says it does. Two common examples are bores greater than 0.50" (many shotguns) and imported firearms. Normally, I would be concerned about domestic manufacturers working to limit imports; but given that they can't meet demand as it is right now WITH imports, I am a tiny bit less concerned. And typically, the imports create a lot of domestic business anyway...
     
  25. xXxplosive

    xXxplosive Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2009
    Messages:
    1,277
    Location:
    New Jersey
    Don't like the sound of this stuff................
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice