Executive Orders

Status
Not open for further replies.
pnac said:
...What about a "Presidential Proclamation", does it carry any legal weight that should concern us?...
Click to expand...
You can answer this if you'd read what you quoted:
...The administrative weight of these proclamations is upheld because they are often specifically authorized by congressional statute,...
Click to expand...
Are there any statutes that need concern us that authorize the President to do something troubling by proclamation? Can you think of any past substantive act taken by presidential proclamation?
 
Been busy all day just saw the headlines. So crazy Uncle Joe says something crazy and people are getting excited? No executive order can take away any rights. I'm starting to think Obama and Company have stock in the firearms industry.
 
I find the 78% favoring registration the most worrying of the poll responses. This means that significant numbers of gun owners most likely support that if the poll data is correct.
Click to expand...
(taken from this thread: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=511709 )
In reference to this link:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=511709

Before putting any faith in those polls, look at where those numbers come from.
Here's the link to one mentioned:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postabcpoll_20121216.html
Here's the actual questions asked & answers on the topic of guns:
"QUESTIONS 28 TO 31 BASED ON 602 INTERVIEWS DEC. 14-16. ERROR MARGIN=4.5 POINTS.

28. On another subject: Do you favor or oppose stricter gun control laws in this country?
----------- Favor -------- ---------- Oppose ------- No
NET Strongly Somewhat NET Somewhat Strongly opinion
12/16/12 54 44 10 43 11 32 3
8/5/12** 51 39 11 47 10 37 2
1/16/11 52 39 13 45 12 33 3
4/24/09 51 36 14 48 12 36 1
9/7/08 RV 50 31 19 45 14 30 5
4/22/07 61 41 20 36 12 23 3
10/8/06 61 45 16 37 15 22 2
5/12/02 57 39 19 37 15 22 6
1/15/01 59 46 13 39 13 26 2
5/10/00 67 50 17 30 9 22 3
4/2/00 64 49 14 34 13 21 2
9/2/99 63 52 11 35 11 25 2
8/15/99 63 46 16 34 12 22 3
5/16/99 67 55 12 31 10 21 1
10/13/93* 64 40 24 33 13 20 3
6/8/89* 60 28 32 34 11 23 6
**Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation
*Gallup trend: "Do you strongly favor, favor, oppose, or strongly oppose enacting tougher gun control laws?"


29. Would you support or oppose a law requiring a nationwide ban on [ITEM]?
12/16/12 - Summary Table

----- Support ----- ------ Oppose ----- No
NET Strg. Smwt. NET Smwt. Strg. opin.
a. Semi-automatic handguns,
which automatically
re-load every time the
trigger is pulled 52 42 11 44 11 34 3
b. The sale of handguns,
except to law
enforcement officers 27 20 7 71 15 56 2
c. High-capacity
ammunition clips,
meaning those containing
more than 10 bullets 59 47 12 38 9 29 2

Trend where available:

a. Semi-automatic handguns, which automatically re-load every time the trigger is pulled

--------- Support -------- ---------- Oppose ------- No
NET Strongly Somewhat NET Somewhat Strongly opinion
12/16/12 52 42 11 44 11 34 3
1/16/11 48 39 9 50 12 37 2
4/22/07 55 46 9 41 9 32 3

b. The sale of handguns, except to law enforcement officers

--------- Support -------- ---------- Oppose ------- No
NET Strongly Somewhat NET Somewhat Strongly opinion
12/16/12 27 20 7 71 15 56 2
1/16/11 31 23 8 67 14 54 2
4/22/07 38 28 9 60 17 42 3
5/10/00 38 26 12 59 16 43 3
9/2/99 32 23 9 65 18 47 3

c. High-capacity ammunition clips, meaning those containing more than 10 bullets

--------- Support -------- ---------- Oppose ------- No
NET Strongly Somewhat NET Somewhat Strongly opinion
12/16/12 59 47 12 38 9 29 2
1/16/11 57 46 11 39 10 29 3


30. What do you think is the best way to reduce gun violence in this country - (by passing stricter gun control laws), or (by stricter enforcement of existing laws)?
Passing Enforcing Both Neither No
new laws existing laws (vol.) (vol.) opinion
12/16/12 32 49 8 7 3
1/16/11 29 57 5 7 2
4/24/09 27 61 5 4 2
4/22/07 29 52 9 8 1
4/2/00 33 53 7 5 2


31. Thinking about the shooting at a Connecticut elementary school: Do you think this shooting reflects broader problems in American society, or are things like this just the isolated acts of troubled individuals?
Broader problems Isolated acts No opinion
12/16/12 52 43 5
7/29/12* 24 67 81/16/11 31 58 12
4/22/07 46 47 7
*July 2012 and previous: Pew Research Center. July, 2012 about “Shooting in Colorado”;
January, 2011 asked about “Shooting in Tucson, Arizona”; April, 2007 question asked
about shooting at Virginia Tech University. "

What I highlighted above is something the linked table in the linked article failed to include - the huge change in that catagory in the last 6 months...
 
Last edited:
crazy Uncle Joe was just floating a trial balloon to see what would happen. A quick read of the reader comments at the end of articles about it on sites such as CBS and CNN shows the public reacting like they found a chunk of feces in a half empty punchbowl. Just some political grandstanding and a testing of the water in my opinion.

I expect when all is said and done we we see more stringent background checks, harsher penalties for straw purchases and perhaps ensuring that all transactions be conducted through a FFL. I can see Obama doing a executive order on that, but not much more. At the very outside would be a reinstatement of the 1994 bill

This is nothing new, here is link to a article written back in 2011 concerning Obama and his desire to use executive orders for gun control

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/15/obama-gun-laws-congress_n_836138.html
 
Last edited:
So, hypothetically let’s say an EO is issued what happens?

It can be challenged by the Congress and/or in the courts. Right?

Obviously based on the current climate in Washington it is difficult to speculate on what Congress might do.

So, regardless of how many Legal Scholars and previous precedents say it is un-Constitutional if the current Court says it is acceptable it then becomes Constitutional. Am I correct?
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
Click to expand...
Since no one else wants to answer it, I will. This is correct. The next Justice will tip the balance and will not be good for any further gun cases/issues that go before them, for us.
 
Frank Ettin said:
Daugherty16 said:
...Many regulations take broad license where the statute is silent...
Click to expand...

Not really. The authority to issue regulations on a matter must be conferred in some way by a statute to which a regulation pertains. Issuance of regulations is in effect a delegation of legislative authority, and there is a large body of decisional law circumscribing that regulatory authority.
Click to expand...

The Gun Control Act of 1968 allow for restriction from import arms without a "sporting purpose". There was no Congressional act that empowered the BATF to restrict from import arms not designed for hunting, yet subsequent regulation established such a restriction.

This is an example of a statute which is silent on a matter, i.e. restriction from import on arms without a "hunting purpose", but where an agency is granted that authority by way of regulation.

It is entirely reasonable for people to worry that the executive will overstepp his constitutional limits in its effort to establish greater restrictions. My crystal ball does not prevent me to assure anyone that the manner of implementation and substance of a future restriction will be consistent with our understanding of the constitutional limits of executive power.
 
What could be done via EO? Maybe tightening states' reporting requirements to NICS, or (one I could get behind) encouraging more aggressive prosecution of straw purchases and other trafficking crimes.

Long story short, take what Biden says with a grain of salt.
Click to expand...

These would be good things, so that can't be it. :rolleyes:
 
There was no Congressional act that empowered the BATF to restrict from import arms not designed for hunting, yet subsequent regulation established such a restriction.
Click to expand...

The "sporting purposes" clause is in the Gun Control Act of 1968: Public Law 90-618. Its been there from day one. That clause give wide latitude to the white house and the BATFE.
 
So, via EO effectively ban foreign made firearms? I could see that happening. You wouldn't see a lot of objection from S&W on that front...
You would have to have foreign invest in plants in the US to meet some sort of domestic content standard then? Could definitely see that.
 
me said:
The Gun Control Act of 1968 allows for restriction from import arms without a "sporting purpose". There was no Congressional act that empowered the BATF to restrict from import arms not designed for hunting, yet subsequent regulation established such a restriction.
Click to expand...

Thallub said:
The "sporting purposes" clause is in the Gun Control Act of 1968: Public Law 90-618. Its been there from day one. That clause give wide latitude to the white house and the BATFE.
Click to expand...

That is the point. The act itself does not limit import to arms with an "hunting purpose". The act is silent on that point.

Hunting is clearly not the only sporting purpose. The subsequent regulation is a substantial expansion.
 
Isn't Wolf and Tula manufactured overseas? That would be the end of them then wouldn't it if such a EO was enacted?
 
Forgive my lack of knowledge on the powers of the EO, but couldn't an EO simply be issued to automatically deny any NICS check on say any weapon with a magazine greater than 10 rounds or a "military style" firearm (whatever that means)? Could that be done? It's simple and doesn't create a new law, I think. It would also prevent the sale of a large percentage of whatever weapons the POTUS wants to block.
 
zukiphile said:
The Gun Control Act of 1968 allow for restriction from import arms without a "sporting purpose". There was no Congressional act that empowered the BATF to restrict from import arms not designed for hunting, yet subsequent regulation established such a restriction.

This is an example of a statute which is silent on a matter, i.e. restriction from import on arms without a "hunting purpose", but where an agency is granted that authority by way of regulation....
Click to expand...
Yes and no. The law also requires that an importer apply for an import license for a firearm, the issuance of which license must be approved by ATF. ATF determine whether or not the importer is entitled to the license based on the statute, and that involves a quasi-judicial determination regarding the application of the statutes to the particular firearm for which the import license is sought.

Administrative agencies like the ATF have quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative functions. Quasi-judicial functions can include things like taking actions to determine if an application for a particular license satisfies the applicable statutory requirements or if a license which has been issued is subject to some sanction because of misconduct by a license. Quasi-legislative functions involve the promulgation of regulations which have the force of law when that promulgation has been authorized by statute and the regulations are promulgated using the proper procedures (e. g., proper public notice and review of public comments).

Quasi-judicial and quasi-legislative actions by administrative agencies are subject to challenge in court.
 
We have no white smoke but there are some more tea leaves coming from the temple:

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/...rce-to-submit-recommendations-by-tuesday?lite

The vice president, charged to lead the task force in the wake of the Newtown school shooting, said that stakeholder groups have expressed "surprising" support for universal background checks so far, as well as some restrictions on high-capacity magazines.

"There is a surprising -- so far -- recurrence of suggestions that we have universal background checks, not just [to] close the gun show loophole, but total, universal background checks, including private sales," Biden said.

Biden has not yet met with the National Rifle Association, the country's powerful gun lobby and foe of restrictions on gun ownership.

Continuing a series of meetings with stakeholders in the gun debate, Biden was scheduled to meet later Thursday with gun owners' groups -- including the NRA -- as well as entertainment industry representatives.

Asked what he intended to discuss with pro-gun representatives, Biden said simply "oh, we're going to talk about all the things that I've talked about here."
Click to expand...

Maybe not "quite" like the antis talked about them.

Why are the antis demands surprising?
 
Executive orders on gun control

OK, it is happening....time to act yet?

I wish people would wait till at least an idea was proposed. Speculating on what the President might do, when he hasn't even proposed anything yet, seems pointless to me too.


WHAT ARE YOU DOING ABOUT THIS????
NON, it is not just speculation.

We all know how politics work. Joe Biden floating the idea of executive orders to change gun laws in this country. This is to gage just how much opposition to the idea there is. If we do not react by calling and writting our representatives it will come to pass.

If you have not CALLED, and WRITTEN to your representatives do not complain when you lose your rights!
I urge EVERYONE OF YOU to call and write your Senators and Congressman both state and federal to voice your opinion about dictatorial decrees eroding America’s rights. The more Obama gets away with the more he will take from you. DEMAND congressional backbone.
Contact your representatives here. PLEASE, do not put t his off, DO IT!!!
If you wait…it may be too late! Do not think everyone else will do it. So far they haven’t!

http://whoismyrepresentative.com/
 
I just wrote a letter to both my Senators and my congressman.
Going to write my state representatives now. PLEASE do the same!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top