Brady Campaign Targeting September 9th For pro-ban call in!

[Graystar]

And once again, I'm asking for a citation on this -- where is this codified?

It's not. Not every concept is codified. When the government tries to jail someone for violating laws that don't exist, I imagine it will be codified at that point. Until then, I'm not aware of any criminal penalty imposed for violating an executive order.

 

[Wildalaska]

So much for Irwin's claim that this was a site willing to discuss, and share, viewpoints.

Some of your claims on executive orders are not viewpoints, they are apparently a deeply ingrained beleif that you want others to share regrdless of validity...

Sort of like alien abductions

The ban is over!
Deal with it!
Everybody stock up in case Kerry wins


WildguessillhavetogivecitationsnextAlaska

 

[2nd Amendment]

Yes, Wild, citations would be nice. Show an actual restriction on what authority an EO can usurp. So far as I can tell there is nothing officially outside the bounds of the assumed power of the EO. I'm not saying what the courts, or the people, might do AFTER an outrageous EO, just saying that a president CAN do as he pleases. If he's dumb enough or agenda driven enough. If you can prove otherwise then by all means do so. I'd like to have my ducks in a row before I write up what I intend.

 

[natedog]

If I hear the words "Ak-47" and/or "Uzi" in conjunction with "flooding" in one sentence again, and it's not someone talking about how their collection was damaged in a rainstorm, I think I'm going to go nuts.

 

[goalie]

"Until the 1950s, there were no rules or guidelines outlining what the President could or could not do through an executive order. However, the Supreme Court ruled that an executive order from President Harry S. Truman that placed all steel mills in the country under federal control was invalid because it attempted to make law, rather than clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution. Presidents since this decision have generally been careful to cite which specific laws they are allegedly furthering when making new executive orders."

So, again I will point out that, as of the 14th, there will be no law to cite that they are allegedly "furthering." Bush Sr used an executive order to clarify a LAW that was already on the books, a law that said only firearms that were "sporting" could be legally imported. If that original law had not been in place, Bush Sr would not have been able to "clarify" the definition of "sporting" and restrict the importation of certain firearms.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

These guys don't know squat.

They want everyone to call the whitehouse, to encourage Bush to renew the ban, as if he could wave his magic wand.

They are just coming at the problem from a different angle I think. They know they cannot make progress in the House or Senate. They also know that the only way to get a ban in time would be to convince Bush to force Congress to rollover on the issue. Both of these are incredible longshots but it is all they have.

More likely (considering they waited until September 9th to launch this effort), they just want to dupe their members, most of whom are ignorant of both gun laws and the legislative process. They will all call on the 9th and then 4 days later it will be in the news that the ban sunsetted. They are basically setting up these voters to be disappointed, probably in hopes of swinging a few votes on election day.

Personally, I don't think it will work because their initial numbers are too small and most of them would not vote for Bush regardless.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

JPL - you are wrong in your interpretation of Executive Orders.

Executive orders are used to carry out delegated authority. For example, the 1968 Gun Control Act says that imported firearms must have "a sporting purpose" even though Congress has made no attempt to define this. The executive branch is charged with determining what constitutes "a sporting purpose". In 1989, this was used to ban semi-automatic military style rifles from import. During the Clinton Administration, it was redefined again to ban any rifle capable of accepting a large capacity military magazine.

An EO can stretch and extend Congressional law quite a bit; but it cannot create new law out of thin air without some authority from Congress or the Constitution.

 

[mrapathy2000]

its unlikely bush would do EO why would he alienate his base now he is not up much.
senate is looking like it will be too busy to do anything session ends october 1st. spoke with a senator face to face and he convinced me in drop of hat that it was full schedule.

 

[Wildalaska]

Personally, I don't think it will work because their initial numbers are too small and most of them would not vote for Bush regardless.

Bingo! The voice of reason appears again!

WilditsoooooooooverAlaska

 

[HKUSP40]

Just another angle at it.What does Bush have to gain by doing it?I say nothing, If he did EO the AWB the crowd that is pushing for it still are not going to vote for him and he would drive voters that are in his camp right now away.So it would be a disaster for Bush to budge on it.
The Ban Is Dead........Joshua

 

[2nd Amendment]

Presidents since this decision have generally been careful to cite which specific laws they are allegedly furthering when making new executive orders."

So we have a single relatively vague SCOTUS decision which thus forces a POTUS to cite the law he is basing his EO upon. In other words, as has been said, there is no actual restraint on an EO, merely what a court might do after the fact...

 

[Wildalaska]

So we have a single relatively vague SCOTUS decision which thus forces a POTUS to cite the law he is basing his EO upon. In other words, as has been said, there is no actual restraint on an EO, merely what a court might do after the fact...

Whatt ifs, how comes, maybes...THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING....

So concerned?...why waste your time arguing on this Board trying to get people to tell ya what you want to hear...get on the horn with your Congressman and get some legislation going to restrict Executive orders.

That would involve some work



PS: An excutive order extending the ban would last three hours before an injunction was issued..... and dont think that there aint an army of lawyers ready to press the print key and run over to the DC district court...

Wildtherare$$inlovedAlaska

 

[DMF]

WA, now don't go ruining all the fun by interjecting logic and reason into this "chest thumping" thread.

 

[Foreign Devil]

Speaking of injunctions: maybe we can get an injunction out in the 9th circuit to get the ATF to abide by the recent Stewart ruling.

 

[Wildalaska]

WA, now don't go ruining all the fun by interjecting logic and reason into this "chest thumping" thread

I cant help it I have to be a spoilsport


WildprobablyapsychproblemAlaska

 

[2nd Amendment]

There are things that really need to be said to certain people but hey, honesty doesn't always fly around here...

Wild: I asked for some evidence of restrictions on EO's. You and yours continue to toddle around telling people that EO's can't do this and can't do that while subtley(or not so) insulting people who disagree with you. I asked for specific restrictions. I asked YOU. Someone else provides the only apparent restriction thus far, an old SCOTUS decision rendered after the fact which may or may not restrict certain applications of EO's today, depending on the president, the application and the current SCOTUS. This is it, while you offer nothing but your unsupported opinion.

And when this is pointed out back you come with the same attitude. And telling me what I should do to boot! Doubly funny. ESPECIALLY after the last time you inquired what I am doing about things political and I told you in detail. Then I asked what YOU are doing. Funny...you never answered. But I'm certain you just missed it...or were too busy...doing so much as you are and all... Tell ya what, I'll try and sluff off this week so I can do the same level of work as you. I could use the rest.

You need to occasionally educate yourself, rather than throwing on your rose colored glasses and not only pretending everything is fine but insisting, as if you have some superior knowledge or authority, that everyone else pretend along with you.

DMF, hehehehehehehe, sorry...I just can't be bothered right now. Busy being lazy and all.

 

[Berg01]

Worthwhile Article on the Subject

"MSNBC.com
Congress won’t vote on assault weapons ban
10-year federal ban set to expire Monday

The Associated Press
Updated: 7:52 p.m. ET Sept. 8, 2004


WASHINGTON - Congress will not vote on an assault weapons ban due to expire Monday, Republican leaders said Wednesday, rejecting a last-ditch effort by supporters to renew it.

“I think the will of the American people is consistent with letting it expire, so it will expire,†Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., told reporters.

The 10-year ban, signed by President Clinton in 1994, outlawed 19 types of military-style assault weapons. A clause directed that the ban expire unless Congress specifically reauthorized it.

Some Democrats and several police leaders said President Bush should try to persuade Congress to renew the ban. Bush has said he would sign such a bill if Congress passed it.

“If the president asked me, it’d still be no ... because we don’t have the votes to pass an assault weapons ban and it will expire Monday and that’s that,†House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, told reporters later.

DeLay said the ban was “a feel-good piece of legislation†that does nothing to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals.

However, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said he would consider allowing the House to vote on legislation only if the Senate acted first.


Appearing at a news conference, chiefs of police from the District of Columbia, Los Angeles, Atlanta and Seattle predicted an increase in violent gun crimes if the bans does expire.

“Our streets, our homes, our citizens and our police officers will face great danger unless the federal ban on assault weapons is renewed,†said Charles H. Ramsey, the police chief in the nation’s capital.

In March, the Senate voted to add the ban to a bill that would have immunized gun manufacturers from liability suits stemming from violent gun crimes. But the Senate voted 90-8 against the final bill after the National Rifle Association urged its defeat.

NRA President Wayne LaPierre said in an interview with The Associated Press that his group is so confident that Congress won’t renew the ban that it is not spending any more money on ads this year opposing it.

He said supporters of the ban could not muster the support needed to bring it to a vote in the House because several Democrats attribute losing their majority in the House in 1994 over votes then in favor of the ban.

© 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5946127/"