Executive Orders

[HankB]

Various Presidents have, over time, issued Executive Orders. A good example is Bush 41's executive orders banning the import of certain guns, banning the import of elephant ivory, etc. (And wasn't it an EO by FDR that banned gold, or did Congress get involved? Before my time . . . )

Now, my question is, what are the consequences if one violates one of these, or some other, executive order?

See, usually when a LAW is passed, the consequences of breaking it are spelled out, something along the lines of violators " . . . shall be imprisoned for a term not more than ten years, or a fine not to exceed ten thousand dollars . . . "

But what about violating an EO? Can the President just say "This is what I want done, and if anyone doesn't do it, he's off to the slammer for 10 years?"

Can such an EO be issued which impacts firearms ownership domestically?

(I'm seriously curious, and looking for an answer, not a debate about what ought to be the case or if EO's are even legal.)

 

[EOD Guy]

Regardless of what some people think, a Presidential Executive Order has to have some connection to an existing law. (Some of the connections can be tenuous.) For instance, the importation ban you referred to was connected to the so called "sporting purpose" clause in the firearms laws. An executive order is a direction to one or more of the departments of the Executive Branch of the government and they are actually quite common. Any weeks worth of the Federal Register will contain one or more of them, not to mention all kinds of Presidential Directives covering things like declaring National Gay Groundhog Month.

 

[Nightfa11]

Good question, and now I think I have it straight.

So let's take the AWB for example:

Title 18, Chapter 44, Section 921 of the United States Code states:

The term ''semiautomatic assault weapon'' means -
(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as -
(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
(iv) Colt AR-15;
(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
(vii) Steyr AUG;
(viii)INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;

An executive order could expand (A) above to include VEPR's or WASR's? Various AR clones?

This makes an EO an example of the usurpation of the power of the judicial branch, right?

Just curious.

 

[mrapathy2000]

yes but the vepr's wasr's and ar's are banned. the only ones in the country are prebans or domesticly manufactured. ie 922(r) compliant. creating an EO to ban a already banned weapon would be redundant and useless. unless he got law changed or can change law with EO.

on the subject of ar15. remember reading bit of law that stated domesticly manufactured firearms are okay to bring back into the country. dont remember full text or have url for reading.

 

[Nightfa11]

the only ones in the country are prebans or domesticly manufactured.

But that's the '89 ban. The '94 ban doesn't regulate domestic or foreign manufacture, just whether the firearm copies an AR-15 or an AK or not.

TEll me the brand new WASR's and Bushmaster X whatevers are not copies of the AK and AR-15. Could an EO (an executive interpretation of a current law) not block even domestic production of these under the '94 ban. If not, why not?

Not that I want them to, I'm just trying to make sure I've got a handle on this.

 

[EOD Guy]

This makes an EO an example of the usurpation of the power of the judicial branch, right?

When Congress passes a law, they direct and authorize the Executive Branch to write the regulations and publish them in the Federal Register. The Legislative Branch writes the laws and the Executive Branch writes the regulations implementing those laws. The Judicial Branch determines if they are within the Constitution and can also say if the Executive Branch exceeded their authority under the law as Congress intended. At least that's how it is supposed to work.