Executive Orders

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's the opposite of what I said. I mean, the total opposite. All he can do is direct stricter enforcement of current laws.
Click to expand...
Ok - please follow with me here..

Suppose the "impossible" were to happen and Feinstien get's her abomination passed.
Now, an unknown number of semi auto firearms fall under the NFA tax, which appears to be set at $200.00 by :
Title 26 › Subtitle E › Chapter 53 › Subchapter A › Part II › § 5811
of the US code.

Could not an executive order then be used to modify the $200.00 tax and raise it to ~ $3,500.00?

carguychris pointed out in the other thread:
"FWIW according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, $200 in 1934 dollars is equal to $3,436 in 2012 dollars"

I can even see where something along that line would make it past a SC challange.

FWIW - I don't see this presently having a snowballs chance of happening.
I'm just wondering if it's a legal use of an EO and would it fall under the guidelines?
 
Hal said:
...Could not an executive order then be used to modify the $200.00 tax and raise it to ~ $3,500.00?...
Click to expand...
You apparently haven't been paying attention to this thread. The answer is "no." The amount of the tax can only be changed by Congress amending the statute.
 
Frank - despite the fact that I believe your one of the rudest people on this forum, I thank you for the answer.

For the life of me, I can't understand exactly what your problem is...
Is it possible for you to give a civil answer to a question without being an a-hole about it first?
 
Hal said:
Frank - despite the fact that I believe your one of the rudest people on this forum, I thank you for the answer.

For the life of me, I can't understand exactly what your problem is...
Is it possible for you to give a civil answer to a question without being an a-hole about it first?
Click to expand...
Yes I am blunt. However, the limitations on the scope of Executive Orders were discussed in this thread in posts 1, 17, 19, 21, 23, 26, 32, 33, 37, 44, 59, and 60; and all those posts effectively answered the question you posed in post 61.
 
I would not think that the primary threat to the pertinent civil liberty would come in the form of an executive order. The latitude available for abuse by way of new legislation would be much greater.

Frank Ettin said:
Yes I am blunt.
Click to expand...

Frank, I did not read him accusing you of being blunt.

Nope. The issue is who decides if an Executive Order is unconstitutional. And here's a hint: it's not you.

The question of constitutionality is one for the court. You might have an opinion, but your opinion doesn't really count. The opinions of courts on such things will affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. Yours will not.

***

You apparently haven't been paying attention to this thread. The answer is "no." The amount of the tax can only be changed by Congress amending the statute.
Click to expand...

The utility of an attorney on the internet, as in real life, rests in helping laymen understand the law. Responding to what appeared to be good-faith questions from a layman with brittle hostility is not blunt; it is just impolite.

As to the matter of executive orders during World War II and the exclusion orders applied against some populations, it is true that the court upheld the government action in Korematsu and that the authority of the executive to issue an executive order was not in itself at issue. It would also be reasonable for a layman to read that decision and be impressed by the extent of the handwringing in which the court engaged on its way to upholding the government.
 
zukiphile said:
...The utility of an attorney on the internet, as in real life, rests in helping laymen understand the law. Responding to what appeared to be good-faith questions from a layman with brittle hostility is not blunt; it is just impolite....
Click to expand...
Fair enough. And I admit that I run out of patience quickly when something has already been addressed.
 
The POTUS has rather wide latitude in the interpretation, implementation and enforcement of existing law.

Contrary to popular belief and contrary to the rantings of various political entertainers; the POTUS may not make new law by executive order, trickery or hocus pocus.
 
Last edited:
From my understanding

Obama has no power to levy any kind of ammo tax or limit of ammo purchase

and one question

Can an executive order restrict importation of firearms and ammunition?
 
Can an executive order restrict importation of firearms and ammunition
Click to expand...

Certainly, this is what the bush import ban did. It relied on a reinterpretation of the meaning of existing law.

In that case, it was a stricter interpretation of the meaning of "sporting purposes"
 
Not trying to be sensational here, but I see there is again an active discussion in the media of Obama using executive order in addition to laws passed.. I tried to see if this was a new statement or just a rehash of the same old same old... I was not able to find a new statement on it so maybe its just a rehash..

For myself "IF" executive order was used for such a thing I think the courts would strike it fast, we cannot have a dictator style order, which is effectively what such a order would be if it was not a interpretation of law. Much to wait and see about and not too worked up about but writing and calling or reps is certainly a great idea... If nothing else, I think this particular discussion shows clearly the level of fear concerning how our current system is working....

I think its important that we are not blindly fearful... Be active, educate and participate, don't panic over a executive order that's not written and in reality cannot stand on its own merit; if it was written as some new law... We have checks and balances for a reason and no office has unlimited power..
 
According to news reports, Biden has suggested that the Administration is considering using an Executive order to get additional gun controls. At the same time he's saying Congressional action is needed.
 
According to news reports, Biden has suggested that the Administration is considering using an Executive order to get additional gun controls. At the same time he's saying Congressional action is needed.
Click to expand...

I just read the same thing -- linked from Drudge. Scary, but for now I'm considering the source and taking a deep breath. Biden isn't known for following the Obama talking points.
 
Yes, Biden has suggested it "Executive action ... can be taken," The president has been vauge, he did say he "Would use his executive powers"

Some of have vocalized our fear of such actions, and been criticized for even thinking it. Here we have the ececutive branch actually threatening it.
 
I think the White House is beginning to realize that any gun control legislation is going to become mired in Congress, and are beginning to abandon that approach in favor of the "quick fix" of an EO. The question is what can Obama do via EO, for now I have heard talk of EOs to strengthen NICS checks, force states to send mental health records to NICS, track gun transfers through a database (sounds like registration), and stiffen penalties for those carrying guns in school no gun zones (idiots). I suppose it is possible he may try to stop imports of guns and ammunition.

However, Obama has grown increasingly imperial-sounding in his tone since the Fiscal Cliff Postponement with pronouncements that he is through debating the debt ceiling, etc. and I could see him issuing some royal and far-reaching EO that while illegal and could be challenged, will be a direct declaration of war against law-abiding gun owners.
 
The 1989 ban wasn't enacted through executive order.
Click to expand...

You are, of course, correct Tom.

My point, which was obviously not made clearly, was that the 1989 ban was a result of an Executive branch 'reevaluation' of existing law (the 1968 GCA). The ban was imposed based on this reevaluation of whether military style semi-autos had a sporting purpose.

Bush never signed an EO (that I know of) to accomplish this, but my point is that such an action would be well within the power of an EO, since it happened entirely within the Executive branch.

Sorry I wasn't more clear.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top