New Executive Actions?
- Thread starter The Teacher
- Start date
- Status
Well that's what happens when people indulge in Olympic class jumping to conclusions.
I don't see how this will affect the CMP in the real world, because they don't re-import guns. It would have been nice if they were allowed to return the taxpayer's property to the taxpayers and it would have given the CMP some useful work, but it doesn't change the status quo.
It's a combination of frustrated temper tantrum / publicity stunt on the part of the administration. If you can't get your agenda through Congress, you should take it as a sign that you should reconsider your agenda, not do whatever petty mischief you CAN accomplish.
If you contend this, demonstrate in detail, with citation to the affected statutes, applicable regulations and executive order exactly how.16in50calNavalRifle said:
Gun Control is to the Democrats what Abortion is to the Republicans. Something they are tied to and is losing elections for them. What is a moderate person to do? Support the Democrats and you lend tacit approval to more Gun Control; support the Republicans and you tacitly support taking away women's rights. What is needed (and feared by both R's and D's) is a way for 3rd parties to be viable. Right now the threshold is so high that no 3rd party can overcome it. Since the Supreme Court ruled on campaign financing (Citizen United) no 3rd party has a chance. Until there is a viable 3rd party we will have business as usual.
tahunua001
Member
it won't kill the CMP. this bans importation through civilian companies like century and ATI. if these countries wish to return these to the US government it will go right back into storage and then eventually shipped to CMP.
all of CMPs guns come from US storage, all those greek rifles they sell still had to go to US storage first.
all of CMPs guns come from US storage, all those greek rifles they sell still had to go to US storage first.
As someone who has taught both administrative and constitutional law at the university level for several years, those who do not believe that Obama has the power to seriously affect legal importation of ammunition, arms, parts kits, etc. are too sanguine about the real limits of presidential power. Generally speaking, the courts will not save you from such.
As noted by several commentators, it is true that under a hierarchy of laws, ie, the Constitution is greater than treaties, treaties are greater than statutes, and statutes are greater than executive orders/agency regulations, and executive orders/regulations are greater than agency policy statements. However, in application, the presumption in court is that the president's or agency's actions are constitutional and lawful unless proven otherwise. If you want a good overview of how the courts have handled executive orders, see Phillip Cooper's book, By Order of the President.
Additionally, most congressional laws are writtenly vaguely so as to cover unforeseen circumstances (and because of disagreement about wording). Agencies may not disobey specific congresssional provisions but courts will generally defer if the agency action is in a gray area. This leaves the agency such as the BATF broad discretion regarding technical aspects as courts will defer to the administrative agency on a technical question such as what is a semi-automatic design that could be easily converted to an illegal automatic one under the NFA (see Chevron v. NRDC or Vermont Yankee for an explanation of this Supreme Court Doctrine). Another example, would be whether or not a particular firearm such as Saiga shotguns have a valid "sporting" purpose would be a technical question that the courts would defer to the ATF. Any legal challenge of an ATF action must generally demonstrate through evidence that the ATF behaved arbitrarily and capriciously in their actions. For a good overview, see this recent 9th Circuit case, http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/guides/stand_of_review/IV_Review_AD.pdf (Parts IV pages 1-8).
Now, what complicates the picture is that judicial deference only applies to technical questions but not legal interpretation of what congressional laws, treaties, or the Constitution means when applying the law to a specific set of facts. Thus, multiple circuits, including most recently the 6th Circuit, have now held that the grandfathering of drop in sears violates the National Firearms Act (http://www.firearmscoalition.org/in...-reversed&catid=19:the-knox-update&Itemid=144). In this case, the circuit court ruled that any automatic firearm that has not be demilled to BATF standards is an illegal firearm whether or not the BATF has decided to grant an exception. The court has ruled that grandfathering by excluding previously manufactured items before the BATF ruling in 1981 violates the NFA. Thus, the BATF's interpretation of its authority to grandfather under the NFA is illegal.
Similar judicial deference usually obtains for Presidential actions regarding imports and exports. Banning the importation of AK's during the Bush I administration by executive order is one example of how broad presidential import and export powers can be as Congress has written statutes granting broad powers and administrative discretion to the president over these matters.
If Obama truly wants to expend the political capital, he can make life miserable for gun owners, firearms dealers, and importers. He can't ban guns by executive order but he can make them more expensive and discourage ownership by new paperwork barriers, raise compliance costs or even ban imports from some countries under laws that have nothing specific to do with firearms. For example, imports from Russia and other countries could be cutoff using a variety of human rights treaties, the UN Small Arms treaty, financial treaties, or even a failure by Russians to hand over Snowden. What you to determine the limits on agency and presidential action would need to do is a thorough reading of applicable statutes, applicable treaties, and any court interpretations of said statutes and treaties.
Sorry for the long post but it is not a clearcut issue and administrative law makes constitutional law appear simple.
As noted by several commentators, it is true that under a hierarchy of laws, ie, the Constitution is greater than treaties, treaties are greater than statutes, and statutes are greater than executive orders/agency regulations, and executive orders/regulations are greater than agency policy statements. However, in application, the presumption in court is that the president's or agency's actions are constitutional and lawful unless proven otherwise. If you want a good overview of how the courts have handled executive orders, see Phillip Cooper's book, By Order of the President.
Additionally, most congressional laws are writtenly vaguely so as to cover unforeseen circumstances (and because of disagreement about wording). Agencies may not disobey specific congresssional provisions but courts will generally defer if the agency action is in a gray area. This leaves the agency such as the BATF broad discretion regarding technical aspects as courts will defer to the administrative agency on a technical question such as what is a semi-automatic design that could be easily converted to an illegal automatic one under the NFA (see Chevron v. NRDC or Vermont Yankee for an explanation of this Supreme Court Doctrine). Another example, would be whether or not a particular firearm such as Saiga shotguns have a valid "sporting" purpose would be a technical question that the courts would defer to the ATF. Any legal challenge of an ATF action must generally demonstrate through evidence that the ATF behaved arbitrarily and capriciously in their actions. For a good overview, see this recent 9th Circuit case, http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/uploads/guides/stand_of_review/IV_Review_AD.pdf (Parts IV pages 1-8).
Now, what complicates the picture is that judicial deference only applies to technical questions but not legal interpretation of what congressional laws, treaties, or the Constitution means when applying the law to a specific set of facts. Thus, multiple circuits, including most recently the 6th Circuit, have now held that the grandfathering of drop in sears violates the National Firearms Act (http://www.firearmscoalition.org/in...-reversed&catid=19:the-knox-update&Itemid=144). In this case, the circuit court ruled that any automatic firearm that has not be demilled to BATF standards is an illegal firearm whether or not the BATF has decided to grant an exception. The court has ruled that grandfathering by excluding previously manufactured items before the BATF ruling in 1981 violates the NFA. Thus, the BATF's interpretation of its authority to grandfather under the NFA is illegal.
Similar judicial deference usually obtains for Presidential actions regarding imports and exports. Banning the importation of AK's during the Bush I administration by executive order is one example of how broad presidential import and export powers can be as Congress has written statutes granting broad powers and administrative discretion to the president over these matters.
If Obama truly wants to expend the political capital, he can make life miserable for gun owners, firearms dealers, and importers. He can't ban guns by executive order but he can make them more expensive and discourage ownership by new paperwork barriers, raise compliance costs or even ban imports from some countries under laws that have nothing specific to do with firearms. For example, imports from Russia and other countries could be cutoff using a variety of human rights treaties, the UN Small Arms treaty, financial treaties, or even a failure by Russians to hand over Snowden. What you to determine the limits on agency and presidential action would need to do is a thorough reading of applicable statutes, applicable treaties, and any court interpretations of said statutes and treaties.
Sorry for the long post but it is not a clearcut issue and administrative law makes constitutional law appear simple.
USSR
Member
Political Naivete. Women's rights to take a life? And, be careful what you wish for. Take a look at how things work out in countries that have third and fourth parties. Makes for strange bedfellows and the dilution of policies in order to get political support from your coalition partners.
Don
I agree that it's possible for the actions of a President by lawful executive order to have significant effects. But it's still important to understand the process and recognize that permissible scope of executive actions (whether by executive order or administrative regulations) is not unlimited. Executive action is still subject to the checks and balances of our process.boom boom said:
The RKBA is furthered most effectively by a sound understanding of the legal and political processes.
Deer_Freak
Member.
Only a few divisions of CMP are shot with the M1. We have been shooting the smallbore division with rifles donated from Canada for years. The Canadian military still uses 22 LR bolt actions for training troops. CMP is far from dead. The cost to compete might go up. Shooters can buy a NIB M1 right now.
AKElroy
Member
The broader issue is that our system requires our elected leaders, and in fact the bureaucrats charged with implementing their policies, to do so within the confines of the intent of the law. They do not do this. Congress fails to pass the dream act, so the executive responds with defacto amnesty by adopting non-enforcement provisions against the will of congress. The exact same is true of key funding provisions that were passed by congress as part of the affordable care act, that have now been arbitrarily changed by this executive in order to limit political fallout prior to the mid-terms, without so much as a hint of pursuing the legislation that is constitutionally required to make such a change.
This degree of overstepping and dishonest dealing is so far not being challenged under our separation of powers. While I agree with frank that it is illegal, it is nonetheless being done without any apparent recourse.
This executive appears completely undeterred, and only occasionally inconvenienced by our laws. And we are about to see it again as congress watches, while in recess, bombs begin to fall on Syria.
Our system only works when our elected officials CHOOSE to abide by it, or in the absence of that, a co-equal branch calling them on it. None of the three are performing that function.
Last edited:
That is a constant theme of many discussions here, and it is fundamentally wrong.AKElroy said:
- Whenever whatever President is in office, whenever an regulatory agency, whenever Congress, or whenever anyone else in government does something we (or any other group with well defined interests) don't like, the first response is on the order of "it's corrupt", or "it's illegal", "it's unconstitutional."
- Sometimes it could be, but most of the time it actually is not.
- The reality is that it's entirely possible to do things that are bad ideas or lousy public policy, but which are otherwise not corrupt, perfectly legal, and almost certain to be found by the courts to be constitutional.
- Things that you or I or others on this board may think are bad ideas or lousy public policy, other people will think are great ideas and excellent public policy. How that debate will finally turn out will be a political matter and be decided by who the body politic elects to represent it in the executive and legislative branches of government.
- If the debate isn't going our way it may well be because we haven't convinced enough of our friends, neighbors, people in our communities, people we work with, etc., to join us in electing representative who will furthr our views of what constitutes good ideas and good public policy.
- The reality is that it's entirely possible to do things that are bad ideas or lousy public policy, but which are otherwise not corrupt, perfectly legal, and almost certain to be found by the courts to be constitutional.
- Of course one reason we tend to fall back on the "it's corrupt, it's illegal, it's unconstitutional" rhetoric is that it's easier to take that tack than articulate why something we don't like is a bad idea or lousy public policy. But that still won't make the "it's corrupt, it's illegal, it's unconstitutional" rhetoric any more useful or effective.
- If something really is corrupt, illegal or unconstitutional, there is always recourse to the courts.
- And if some action by the President or a regulatory agency is a bad idea or bad public policy, Congress can fix that by changing the law.
- And if we not getting the results we want in the courts or in Congress, we aren't being as politically effective as we need to be.
- If something really is corrupt, illegal or unconstitutional, there is always recourse to the courts.
AKElroy
Member
I don't believe I used any of these terms in my post, except to infer from your post that failure to follow our system as designed would be illegal, and that we have checks and balances to prevent such from being successful. I agree with that in principle, but it is failing in practice.
I also agree with your last line, that much of the current frustration is due to a lack of civic involvement, but it goes deeper than that. Populations can be and are being effectively propagandized into accepting this as normal, and this is having the effect of skewing public understanding. Coupled with a state-run education system that further indoctrinates them against being the careful watchmen our republic requires, then we have what we have. If stating that truth fails to advance any particular cause, it is still nonetheless true.
Where are the lawsuits from the leader in the house against the obamacare changes? Where is the injunction from either congressional leader being pursued against bombing Syria before yet another Unconstitutional event occurs? (And yes, I am calling it that unless someone can point to how this president can act without congress when the US is not under threat). I have screamed as loud as one individual can. It takes more than that. Too many of the rest have been so indoctrinated as to not engage in the process.
My entire point is simply this. In the absence of people caring and officials willingly operating within the law, sepration of powers is relegated to a lofty ideal without any meaningful substance.
I'm not sure who said it, but here is my point. Our republic requires moral leaders and concerned citizens in order to survive. I'm not seeing much of either.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
If you wish to comment on the proposed regulation, Reference Docket Number ATF41P and follow instructions at www.regulations.gov or see page 49 of the above-linked PDF for how to send a hardcopy (confidential comment) that will not be public record.
Note the new regulation is not eliminating the CLEO signoff; but instead extending it to trusts and corporations!
Note the new regulation is not eliminating the CLEO signoff; but instead extending it to trusts and corporations!
It's failing based on your opinions and values -- with which apparently many folks don't agree.AKElroy said:
All of which is a common rationalization for why other people don't agree with you and have failed to recognize your ultimate truth.AKElroy said:
Which thus assumes that you know the truth and those who disagree with you do not.AKElroy said:
Perhaps enough people don't agree with you that those are the best things to do. And perhaps you are not fully aware of what is going on behind closed doors.AKElroy said:
Except no doubt many believe that people do care and officials are operating within the law and that the separation of powers is alive and well.AKElroy said:
When things don't go the way some folks want, their first response tends to be that the system is broken. But the system doesn't guarantee any particular results.
AKElroy
Member
You're implying (more like stating) that people that believe as I do are closed minded. This is not just an intellectual exercise where we try to modify realities based on individual perspectives. Real people, with real lives, are being harmed in this country by actions contrary to its founding. I do not believe one can look at what we have become and where we are headed without believing our system, as currently governed, is flawed. It is flawed because it relies on people with individual, primarily selfish agendas that supersede the ideals that existed at our founding.
In my professional life, I am required to implement numerous new regulations on the financial services industry. I can tell you with certainty that the bureaucrats charged with implementing recent legislation are doing so in a way that congress itself never intended, with drastic results pending. I know this because I have interactions with the very individuals that passed it. They created a system that is wholly unaccountable to congress or the people, only the executive. Not even congress can withhold funding, as this organization, the CFPB, is independently funded by the FED. They are purely autonomous from the very protections you claim we have. Two years ago, these regulatory changes forced me to close a business, laying off 24 people, all of whom had families to feed. This is real. Today, I had to do it again.
This has colored my view, as it is wreaked havoc on thousands in my industry without any possible recourse. THE SAME CAN HAPPEN TO ANY INDUSTRY, including those that effect RKBA.
In my professional life, I am required to implement numerous new regulations on the financial services industry. I can tell you with certainty that the bureaucrats charged with implementing recent legislation are doing so in a way that congress itself never intended, with drastic results pending. I know this because I have interactions with the very individuals that passed it. They created a system that is wholly unaccountable to congress or the people, only the executive. Not even congress can withhold funding, as this organization, the CFPB, is independently funded by the FED. They are purely autonomous from the very protections you claim we have. Two years ago, these regulatory changes forced me to close a business, laying off 24 people, all of whom had families to feed. This is real. Today, I had to do it again.
This has colored my view, as it is wreaked havoc on thousands in my industry without any possible recourse. THE SAME CAN HAPPEN TO ANY INDUSTRY, including those that effect RKBA.
I'm stating that forgetting that we live in pluralistic, political society in which people legitimately disagree on any number of matters is not a useful, and is a badly skewed, perspective.AKElroy said:
Yet no doubt many people do not believe the system is flawed. Furthermore, many who might believe it's flawed believe it's flawed in different ways from what you believe.AKElroy said:
If you don't believe that, you are at a significant disadvantage dealing with the real world and finding ways to effectively work for change.
And during the course of my career I've been responsible for helping businesses deal with governmental regulatory requirements. Some businesses have done a better job of doing so than others. But those businesses which are most successful dealing with governmental regulations tend to take a very matter-of-fact view of governmental regulatory activities and see them as just another environmental factor with which they must manage for -- just like competition, technology and the overall economic climate.AKElroy said:
AKElroy
Member
I absolutely agree. That does not mean they are not wrong. As for regulation, I'm referring to Dodd/Frank, both of whom, the very authors of the bill, acknowledge it is severely damaging the availability of risk capital in ways they never intended, and yet it is still with us, with bureaucracies acting in total, unaccountable autonomy. This creation of such a body as the CFPB IS unprecedented. When all borrowers are forced on 1/10/14 to make a 30% down payment to purchase a home, you will have an idea of the power of the type of unaccountability I'm referring to. This is an active proposal being seriously considered. Not because economics drive it, but rather a bureaucrat thinks it will help keep loans from default.
22% of the home loans I currently approve will be unavailable to the public on 1/10/14, even without this latest provision proposed just yesterday. That is why I was forced to let people go today. I cannot afford them with such a reduction coming, ENTIRELY created by the very unaccountable rule makers you believe the system can prevent. Not all regulations are equal, not all can be absorbed. Not all can be fought. Its not just financial services. Ask the coal industry about the power of unbridled unaccountable rule making.
Nor does it mean that you are right.AKElroy said:
A discussion of regulations in the financial services industry is off topic here. But the bottom line is still that (1) there can be disagreement about what is good and bad public policy; (2) a bad decision doesn't mean the system isn't working -- only that a bad decision was made; and (3) no system can guarantee that bad decisions aren't made.
AKElroy
Member
I am, though.
PavePusher
Member
If they claim a "sporting purpose" exemption, they're going to have to shut down a lot of shooting matches....
http://www.odcmp.com/NM.htm
I don't know enough about this to say how I think it will affect the CMP. It looks like it probably won't but let's say for argument's sake that it will. How much money does the CMP bring in through selling rifles compared to how much money they bring in through matches. I'm guessing they make a whole lot more money from rifles (I would guess most of the funding is from Crosman but I'm not sure). Most of the people that I know that have bought rifles from them never participate in any of their matches or really have anything to do with them. I've even debated getting a Garand from them and I have never shot one of their matches although it does look like fun and I plan to someday.
On a different note, it looks like the ATF is planning to do their own "trust busting" anyways by adding CLEO signoff regardless.
On a different note, it looks like the ATF is planning to do their own "trust busting" anyways by adding CLEO signoff regardless.
One more time:
This will not affect CMP as they do not import rifles.
Garands etc are returned to the US Army that were loaned to other countires. They are then turned over to CMP for sale. CMP is not a Importer
Orest the Director of Operations at CMP even stated this will not affect them
This will not affect CMP as they do not import rifles.
Garands etc are returned to the US Army that were loaned to other countires. They are then turned over to CMP for sale. CMP is not a Importer
Orest the Director of Operations at CMP even stated this will not affect them
Queen_of_Thunder
member
Folks after reading 6 pages I see CMP is all one is talking about. Surplus military weapons means rifles,pistols amd shotguns.
Ash
Member
I agree that we do live in a pluralistic society. If that pluralistic society decided that we do not have the right to own arms our response should be...what? We should not say it is wrong, bad, or a failure? Do you agree that the pluralistic society that decided the races were not intellectually equal, with many states deciding that they should not mix socially or in education? Segregation did not mean something was wrong with the system?
Ah, but you might point out that Brown vs. Board of Education proved the system worked. Shall we, then, do without our arms should that even occur for what, 70 years, while we wait for the system to work - assuming it did? That is far afield from the silly actions of the President at the moment, and more an exercise in theory than utter fact I'll admit. However, the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban was the law of the land until it sunsetted. Do you agree with the pluralistic society which supported that law? That same society in large part still supports it. Shall we sit back and applaud the system should 10 round magazines be re-imposed? Shall we point with pride at how the system worked in New York, where time was manipulated so that regular citizens would have no real input?
As a forester, I know governmental regulation and the powerful effects of agency determination. Visit St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana and observe the system which denies forest landowners the right to manage their own forests with competent foresters using appropriate techniques. It matters little, of course, that landowners there face an upfront 25% reduction in value (in real terms, think $30,000-$100,000 in lost value) because of environmental regulations imposed without scientific input and without environmental value. Yet, at the same time, the same Parish allowed the Nature Conservancy to perform the largest clearcut I have ever managed (317 acres) so that they could plant Longleaf Pine. Were both Goose and Gander covered here? I know, that is covered by what you called bad decisions - or political favoritism. In any case, the NC did not face said 25% loss in value...lucky them.
Ultimately, this is an issue-oriented board which will not support the pluralistic views of many in society. That we don't agree on other issues is clear that there is not uniformity of broader issue-thought. Even on firearms issues debate occurs. Yet find those people who endured a few generations as the system "worked" itself out and congratulate them on their success.
As to success, you are right about navigating the system. When you have no choice, it is best to not fight and instead find the best route through which to travel. But that is akin to not resisting rape - you might as well lean back and enjoy it, right? Yeah, that's way beyond an extreme interpretation of what you mean, I know. But which of those business have to enrich you in order to follow regulations that are difficult to follow. I have no doubt you see the system as fully-functional and appropriate. Your opinion is your own and doubtlessly shared. To me, I see the broader structure as generally sound and so we agree. But the system has ceded far too much power to agencies which, by their actions through the direction of the President (or though the powerful force of their chair/secretary) and through that created the effect of passing laws without representation in what can only be called dictatorial in nature. The vast size of the various bureaucracies with their intricate powers and specific rules-making (as I sit here, I have spewed several gallons of pollutants into my room by one such change in interpretation for political reasons) and inconsistent interpretations on different organizations is proof that the system itself does not work so smoothly.
Where is it law that "Once a Machine Gun Always a Machine Gun" exists? How is it a PSL can be called a machine gun when it was never an automatic? Ditto for an L1A1 or M76? Those are not laws of the land but interpretations. Said interpretations can have you thrown in prison and your treasure beyond the firearm confiscated.
Ah, but you might point out that Brown vs. Board of Education proved the system worked. Shall we, then, do without our arms should that even occur for what, 70 years, while we wait for the system to work - assuming it did? That is far afield from the silly actions of the President at the moment, and more an exercise in theory than utter fact I'll admit. However, the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban was the law of the land until it sunsetted. Do you agree with the pluralistic society which supported that law? That same society in large part still supports it. Shall we sit back and applaud the system should 10 round magazines be re-imposed? Shall we point with pride at how the system worked in New York, where time was manipulated so that regular citizens would have no real input?
As a forester, I know governmental regulation and the powerful effects of agency determination. Visit St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana and observe the system which denies forest landowners the right to manage their own forests with competent foresters using appropriate techniques. It matters little, of course, that landowners there face an upfront 25% reduction in value (in real terms, think $30,000-$100,000 in lost value) because of environmental regulations imposed without scientific input and without environmental value. Yet, at the same time, the same Parish allowed the Nature Conservancy to perform the largest clearcut I have ever managed (317 acres) so that they could plant Longleaf Pine. Were both Goose and Gander covered here? I know, that is covered by what you called bad decisions - or political favoritism. In any case, the NC did not face said 25% loss in value...lucky them.
Ultimately, this is an issue-oriented board which will not support the pluralistic views of many in society. That we don't agree on other issues is clear that there is not uniformity of broader issue-thought. Even on firearms issues debate occurs. Yet find those people who endured a few generations as the system "worked" itself out and congratulate them on their success.
As to success, you are right about navigating the system. When you have no choice, it is best to not fight and instead find the best route through which to travel. But that is akin to not resisting rape - you might as well lean back and enjoy it, right? Yeah, that's way beyond an extreme interpretation of what you mean, I know. But which of those business have to enrich you in order to follow regulations that are difficult to follow. I have no doubt you see the system as fully-functional and appropriate. Your opinion is your own and doubtlessly shared. To me, I see the broader structure as generally sound and so we agree. But the system has ceded far too much power to agencies which, by their actions through the direction of the President (or though the powerful force of their chair/secretary) and through that created the effect of passing laws without representation in what can only be called dictatorial in nature. The vast size of the various bureaucracies with their intricate powers and specific rules-making (as I sit here, I have spewed several gallons of pollutants into my room by one such change in interpretation for political reasons) and inconsistent interpretations on different organizations is proof that the system itself does not work so smoothly.
Where is it law that "Once a Machine Gun Always a Machine Gun" exists? How is it a PSL can be called a machine gun when it was never an automatic? Ditto for an L1A1 or M76? Those are not laws of the land but interpretations. Said interpretations can have you thrown in prison and your treasure beyond the firearm confiscated.
- Status
