...executive action w/out Congressional Approval

[Killian]

Biden's recommendations are likely to include proposals for legislation, as well as executive action Obama can sign into law without lawmakers' approval.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-talks-on-gun-control-measures/#ixzz2HP2h8ciV

 

[Shadow 7D]

OE are not law, (and have no force of law)
technically they are directives on how to apply or comply with laws...

they can be challenged, and will be tossed if they even hint to conflict law, or tossed by a simple up/down vote of congress.

Now, an activist judge, a stacked congress... it takes more than his simple say so.

 

[Killian]

The importation of Chinese arms and ammunition is still part of an executive order, written by George Bush Sr. I believe or Bill Clinton. No new bullets or guns from China has been imported since.


Edit: So I wouldn't exactly say they have no force at all. Quite the contrary.

 

[leapfrog]

who is going to challenge any of the masters EO's even if they are challenged there would have to be a court process and that could take 4.5 years.
There is no one in DC willing to call him on anything.

 

[Shadow 7D]

double post, thanks firefox....

 

[beatledog7]

An EO is as valid as we allow it to be, and no more so.

 

[alsaqr]

The importation of Chinese arms and ammunition is still part of an executive order, written by George Bush Sr. I believe or Bill Clinton. No new bullets or guns from China has been imported since.

The BATFE under Reagan, Bush I and Clinton banned the importation of certain semi-automatic weapons under the "sporting purposes" clause of the GCA 1968: No E. O. required. The two shotguns were also declared "destructive devices".

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:George_Herbert_Walker_Bush/Executive_orders

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/clinton.html

 

[Old Fuff]

OE are not law, (and have no force of law)
technically they are directives on how to apply or comply with laws...

True, and using the 1968 Gun Control Act as a basis Obama can issue some that will hurt us.

But he cannot escape the political consequences to his party and it's overall agenda. Bill Clinton found that out the hard way in 1994, and today we are a far stronger position then we were then.

 

[Killian]

He may not care about the political consequences to his party. And I saw an article recently that posed the question if gun control was good for the Republican Party. 1994 to 2004 Republicans either had majorities or held their own in Congress. 2006--two years after the AW ban expired--and you have Democrats winning in a land slide and continuing to make gains since. Apparently having an expired AW ban isn't "motivating" enough, so the Republican Party needs to allow some version to be reinstated. To "whip up" 350% support from gun owners...that seems to have been the argument.

 

[berettaprofessor]

And I saw an article recently that posed the question if gun control was good for the Republican Party. 1994 to 2004 Republicans either had majorities or held their own in Congress. 2006--two years after the

Classic post-hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Too many factors led to the Republican falling out of favor to attribute any one cause. Most importantly, between those years George Bush took office and IMHO was the worst thing to happen to the Republican party; this from an initial supporter and died in the wool Republican.

 

[JustinJ]

Fox news speculation as to what Obama will do is hardly considered reliable news.

 

[joeschmoe]

They also said they would eliminate the deficit and get the economy going. Just talk.

 

[d2wing]

Obama has stated he is looking into executive action. Fox is more reliable than the other networks but they have there failings as well. Obama has defied the courts and constitutional law and gets away with it as have other presidents.
Obama seems to enjoy chipping away at the constitution and separation of powers. He stated before his first term what he thinks about the Midwesterners
And their Guns and God in a speech in San Francisco. He doesn't care about damage to his party and told Putin he would have a free hand his second term.
He will do something if he can't get movement fron congress. People like him and Feinstein are exactly why we need the second amendment.
Obama is dangerously clever and ruthless. Don't underestimate him or be misguided about what he will do or intends to do. Keep in mind, any new laws will be a loss of rights. There is no laws that will extend protection of the constitution. In fact a Georgetown law prof said live on TV that he supports scrapping the constitution along with justice Ginsberg, and other powerful
Liberals.

 

[Sam1911]

I'm closing this for redundancy.

We have so many threads on the threat of Executive Orders already that we really don't need another.

Do a search here, or study from a legal resource elsewhere, and find out what an Executive Order is and isn't.

It isn't a royal decree and isn't a way for the President to make law.