Executive Order to prevent enforcement of NFA and FOPA 922(o)?

[jlbraun]

I know that only Congress can repeal a law, but can Executive Orders from the Office of the President be used to prohibit enforcement of certain laws? Is there any precedent for this?

For example, "Enforcement activities pertaining to violations of FOPA Section 922(o) are hereby prohibited."

Does the Chief Executive even have this power?

 

[countertop]

yes

 

[Hkmp5sd]

An example of how to get around the law is what Clinton did with the "Relief from Disabilities" portion of federal gun laws. Under the law, a person prohibited from possessing firearms can apply to the Director of ATF to get his right restored. This involves ATF doing an investigation into the person and forwarding everything to the Director for his decision.

Clinton and his bunch couldn't change the law, but simply removed from ATF's budget any funds to pay for agents doing the investigations. As such, no requests were (and still are) not being processed.

I don't think an Exective Order would work for 922(o). The president would have to order ATF to start processing and approving transfers, which is in violation of 922(o). Obviously the president cannot order an agency to directly violate the law.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Clinton and his bunch couldn't change the law, but simply removed from ATF's budget any funds to pay for agents doing the investigations. As such, no requests were (and still are) not being processed

Clinton did not do that. Congress did. Congress is responsible for the budget of federal agencies. The Executive is responsible for enforcing the laws that Congress passes.

I don't think the Executive could ignore laws Congress has passed unless they were unconstitutional (and that would definitely force a showdown on the Second Amendment in the Supreme Court). However, the Executive does have a lot of leeway in enforcing laws - for example he can still interpret what firearms serve a "sporting purpose" more or less favorably (though Congress has restricted this by legislation as well with regards to imports).

 

[LAR-15]

Klintoon got Congress to defund that program

 

[ctdonath]

Could he cite mutually conflicting law (2nd vs. 922(o)) and refuse to enforce the subordinate portion pending a suitable ruling by SCOTUS?

Any way we could get alledged MG collector Cheney to push for this?

 

[Hkmp5sd]

However, the Executive does have a lot of leeway in enforcing laws - for example he can still interpret what firearms serve a "sporting purpose" more or less favorably (though Congress has restricted this by legislation as well with regards to imports).

Don't even need the president for that. The director of ATF determines the definition of "sporting".

 

[beerslurpy]

Yes, definitely. The president can be a forceful check on the other two branches.

Imagine what would happen if I were elected president:
-all persons ever convicted or charged with any violation of Title 18 Chapter 44 are hereby pardoned of those offenses.
-all persons ever convicted or charged with any violation of Title 26, Subtitle E, Chapter 53 are hereby pardoned of those offenses.
-all persons ever convicted of any misdemeanor domestic violence crime are hereby pardoned of those offenses.
-under the authority granted me by the 68 GCA, an NFA amnesty is in effect for the next 90 days, another one will be granted in 90 days, and so on, ad fininitum
-the executive orders banning importation of certain semiautomatic weapons are hereby rescinded
-the finding that the USAS-12, Protecta-12 and Streetsweeper shotguns are non-sporting is overturned
-David Kopel is nominated as attorney general
-Dave Hardy is nominated as ATF director

and later on....
-Janice Rogers Brown to the supreme court
-Kozinski to the supreme court

 

[Car Knocker]

Klintoon got Congress to defund that program

And the Republican President, the Republican Senate and the Republican House have continued to not fund that program since Clinton left office.

 

[LAK]

Funny, I was just remarking on this subject as it relates to another thread. People ought to spend the time to look up and read all the Executive Orders as currently amended, and basic operating plans for the applicable Federal Agencies like FEMA during a declared state of national emergency. Very time consuming, but should be an eye opener for many.

There is not much they can not do - short of shooting you dead in cold blood for absolutely nothing. Of course I may have missed that one.

-------------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[Phetro]

Yes, definitely. The president can be a forceful check on the other two branches.

Imagine what would happen if I were elected president:
-all persons ever convicted or charged with any violation of Title 18 Chapter 44 are hereby pardoned of those offenses.
-all persons ever convicted or charged with any violation of Title 26, Subtitle E, Chapter 53 are hereby pardoned of those offenses.
-all persons ever convicted of any misdemeanor domestic violence crime are hereby pardoned of those offenses.
-under the authority granted me by the 68 GCA, an NFA amnesty is in effect for the next 90 days, another one will be granted in 90 days, and so on, ad fininitum
-the executive orders banning importation of certain semiautomatic weapons are hereby rescinded
-the finding that the USAS-12, Protecta-12 and Streetsweeper shotguns are non-sporting is overturned
-David Kopel is nominated as attorney general
-Dave Hardy is nominated as ATF director

and later on....
-Janice Rogers Brown to the supreme court
-Kozinski to the supreme court

It took me about five seconds after reading this...call me "a little slow":

Beerslurpy for President!

 

[tellner]

I suppose an executive order can be used in practice. In theory, that "damned piece of paper" as Our Shrub calls it requires that the President faithfully execute and enforce the laws passed by Congress. The fact that people even consider this seriously is yet another sign that the Republic is dead and that we live in the politest police state in the world.

 

[Kharn]

Theoretically, the President could declare an annual NFA amnesty, which would let everyone show up with $200 and register all the toys they happened to find. But the chances of that happening are lower than the chances of all of us winning the lottery on the same day.

Kharn

 

[ilbob]

Imagine what would happen if I were elected president:
[..]-all persons ever convicted of any misdemeanor domestic violence crime are hereby pardoned of those offenses.

The president cannot pardon an offense committed at the state level. Only a governor could do that.

He certainly could offer a blanket pardon to those convicted of federal offenses of any type, but probably should not do so. The pardon power should be reserved for cases where it is earned or maybe in cases where a conviction occurred unjustly.

Carter pardoned all the draft dodgers.

If a president wanted to, presumably he could offer a blanket pardon to future offenders as well. If you can pardon someone who may have committed an offense but was never convicted of it, why not someone who has yet to commit an offense?

I wonder if a later president could revoke such a pardon of future offenders?

 

[SIOP]

Exactly which president were you thinking might do this? Hillary Cliniton? Guliani? George "Assault weapons have no place in our society" Bush?

 

[beerslurpy]

Well, then pardoning someone who violated Lautenberg (which is part of 18 USC Chapter 44) would have the same basic effect.

I checked and youre right about it having to be "an offense against the United States" but it has to be granted after the offense has been committed.

 

[beerslurpy]

The fact that people even consider this seriously is yet another sign that the Republic is dead and that we live in the politest police state in the world.

No, wrong. He faithfully enforces and executes the the laws of the United States, the uppermost of which is the constitution itself. If a president has to nullify acts of congress by issuing pardons to defend the Constitution, then that would be a lawful exercise of power. Indeed, that is why he was given the power. It is a check upon Congress.

Oh look, an oath!

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

So I would consider any President who follows my little blueprint to be a patriot of the highest order and following his oath in both letter and spirit. My little plan would be the farthest thing possible from encouraging or creating a police state. It would be the greatest affirmation of the right to keep and bear arms since the slaves were freed and regained their natural rights.

 

[ilbob]

I checked and youre right about it having to be "an offense against the United States" but it has to be granted after the offense has been committed.

just where in the constitution does it say that the pardon cannot be granted in advance?

 

[DKSuddeth]

just where in the constitution does it say that the pardon cannot be granted in advance?

It doesn't. Didn't Gerald Ford pardon Nixon before the investigation was even over with?

 

[beerslurpy]

It's just a fundamental part of what the word "pardon" and "offense" (n) means. You can only pardon people for things they have done- something can't be an "offense against the United States" unless it has occurred. This is where we get terms like "re-offender" and "sex offender"- the term refers to the actual act or the person doing it, not to the relatively abstract concept of it being illegal.

You can't "pardon" crimes, only the people that commit them.

Also, pardons existed under previous forms of government and were already a well understood concept at the time. It is discussed in the Federalist Papers where they debate whether or not it is wise to grant the President that authority.

edit for DKSuddeth- He didnt pardon Nixon for a crime he was going to do in the future, he pardoned him for one that may have occurred in the past. It isnt necessary to arrest or charge someone for them to be pardoned. The pardon only has to refer to something that has already happened.

 

[Ira Aten]

No, the Chief Executive does not have that power granted by the Constitution, but the last three Chief Executives sure have decided they will try and convince us they do anyway, and it has worked on a lot of folks unfortunately.


The Chief Executive has no solitary power to make or manufacture a law or to void one with the exception of his veto power. However, 2/3rds of the Senate overrides his veto power.

So why in the world would the Founders have guaranteed his veto would not over-ride Congress, yet grant him the right to draft a document claiming a power, or make an act "illegal" or "legal" if his veto was outvoted by the Senate.

Answer: They did not.

 

[Archie]

In point of fact...

President Andrew Jackson overturned a Supreme Court decision while he was in office. At least in effect, he did.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1832 the Cherokee Nation was not subject the "Indian Removal Act of 1830"; the decision barred the state of Georgia from removing Indians from traditional lands. President Jackson refused to act, saying "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!" The Cherokee were removed, SCOTUS ruling notwithstanding.

I think the bottom line is Presidents, as well as legislatures and courts, have about as much power as we the people let them get away with.

 

[ilbob]

SCOTUS ruling notwithstanding.

The supreme court pretty much made up out of thin air the idea that they could declare a law unconstitutional. There is no such power granted to the judiciary in the constitution.

There is power granted in the constitution for the supreme court to set rules for the lower courts, so they can tell the lower federal courts that certain laws are unconstitutional and the lower federal courts have to abide by that ruling. They can also tell the lower courts they can rule on the constitutionality of laws, even though there is no specific power granted to the courts to do this.

My personal take on this is pretty close to what John Marshall said in Marbury v. Madison (paraphrasing) "You might be right, and the court system can so determine, but the judiciary has no power to compel the executive to act in regards to that determination".

 

[ctdonath]

Then what's the point of SCOTUS?

 

[beerslurpy]

I think it is reasonable that the SCOTUS be allowed to strike down laws as unconstitutional.

Presidents can disregard either branch of government if they think the other one will let them get away with it. When the president enforces a recently passed and popular law, is he likely to be impeached because the supreme court declares it unconstitutional? No, not at all. Similarly, a president could act in a complete contempt of congress and if the supreme court or senate was at least somewhat on his side, it wouldnt go anywhere. Remember House brings articles of impeachment, the CJ of the Supreme Court referees and the Senate votes as a jury. And they need 2/3rds to convict. Good luck unless the impeachee has done something genuinely villanous as opposed to politically distatsteful.