Tennessee Gentleman
New member
So, could any legal scholar folk tell me what could a POTUS do gun control wise with Executive Orders that would stand SCOTUS scrutiny?
If We Had To Swallow One New Gun Control Law, Which One?
- Thread starter 5whiskey
- Start date
- Status
Not a legal scholar, but it's my understanding he (she) has very broad powers regarding import restrictions. And that's about it. But you are assuming the SC will hear a gun case. They don't take them very often.
Here's two articles by Cass R. Sunstein, a Bloomberg Opinion columnist, talking about Executive Orders:
"Here's How Executive Orders Actually Work-Hint: Slowly"
https://www.twincities.com/2020/11/...w-executive-orders-actually-work-hint-slowly/
"There’s Nothing Nefarious About Executive Orders"
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...orders-by-presidents-are-normal-not-nefarious
Just putting this out for information. I too, would be interested in what the legal folk on this site have to say.
"Here's How Executive Orders Actually Work-Hint: Slowly"
https://www.twincities.com/2020/11/...w-executive-orders-actually-work-hint-slowly/
"There’s Nothing Nefarious About Executive Orders"
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/a...orders-by-presidents-are-normal-not-nefarious
Just putting this out for information. I too, would be interested in what the legal folk on this site have to say.
I was thinking it would be 1 per week/month whatever timeframe limits. I didn’t know anyone anywhere has even thought of the audacious act of capping the number of firearms you own. I guess some would love to see it. But the intent of the poll is a max amount of firearms for a certain time period.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
That's the law in many countries, so you can be sure the anti-gun forces have thought about it -- and are thinking about it.5whiskey said:
For example, in Greece citizens are only allowed to own two handguns. To be allowed even that many, they must shoot in 'X' competitions every year to keep their license active. Reloading is not allowed, and if you think ammo prices in the U.S. are high now -- they ain't nuthin' compared to what ammunition costs in Greece.
https://ezine.m1911.org/showthread.php?173-International-Focus-Greece
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Are you referring to the famous "... a rifle behind every blade of grass" quotation? If so, the quotation is unsubstantiated, and generally considered to be fiction.burbank jung said:
https://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/misquoting-yamamoto/
http://everyblade.us/
https://www.quora.com/Did-Isoroku-Y...e-a-rifle-behind-every-blade-of-grass?share=1
Having lived in Greece for several years a couple of decades ago I can tell you that, just as with all of Europe, equivalent First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment citizens rights are also not theoretically, nor practically, anywhere near as strong either.
What you see in Greece and most of Europe is broad acceptance of government preemption of harm through constraining liberty at the outset, instead of post harm penalty we have in the US, and as a result regulatory regime on almost all of civil and business spheres that is Orwellian in volume -- and in southern Europe -- disobeyed or end run as a matter of habit. For example I had the "fixer" at our Athens office (and any corporate office of more than five people has a full time local hire fixer to deal with beurocracy in S. Europe) handle my shotgun license. I don't know, nor want to, if or what portion of the fixing involved bribes or simply expertise in the regulations. What I do know is with EU wide "conformity: rules coming into effect gun ownership in the EU, even formerly loose enforcement places like Greece, is and will get harder and more prohibitive.
That is a sage and central observation. What is transfer of possession? If I am going to take someone to the range who has never or rarely shot before, I would give first basic operation and safety lesson at the comfort of home. Would any of us teach the parts of a revolver or semi auto handgun and have the very first time a person touched a gun be while standing in a booth with ear protection on and distraction of other shooters and time constraints??
I think the antis want to stop transfer and possession alright -- they make it difficult for anyone to transfer knowledge. Why? because people who dont know about guns at all are the most likely to see them as a totemic power, fetish instead of what they are, a tool. You and I and all of us here know that demystifying firearms makes people more accepting, and for example certainly makes younger persons more safety conscious. But for the other side gun knowledge means gun acceptance and they see it as viral and therefore it needs to be prevented.
In terms of another subject in this thread: Executive orders in the US, or more to the point on presidential power -- executive orders, agency appointments, promulgation of regulatory law, and longer term, judicial appointments-- there is a whole lot Biden can do. Can he do AWB with that? No. Can he do scores of things that make lawful gun ownership more expensive, complex and exposed to legal sanction? Yes.
There are currently about 9,000 plum job appointments, meaning federal executive jobs given by a presidential to politically aligned persons, de facto jobs that are part of the Prudential administration. At least a hundred impact 2A to some degree or anther. There certainly can be administration decisions impacting 855, 80%, braces, whether if you ever smoked dope, even where legal, disqualifies you, whatever.
On the unsourced Yamamoto quote: We should avoid repeating the quote since it is unsourced and harms credibly. But on the other side of the equation we know that potential and actual military occupiers have long (and I mean millennia) considered the level to which a subject population is armed, and in virtually every known case made confiscation of even hunting firearms owned by civilian in occupied counties a top level prohibition. We are talking summary death penalty offense. When the Nazis went in anywhere pretty much the first thing on the posters they put up were: "would all the Jews come down to the town square tomorrow," and "everyone and anyone with a firearm turn in their guns immediately, or face the death penalty." The Japanese issued summery laws on firearm possession in the Philippines, occupied China, Indonesia, malaysia etc. And even the US occupation authorities made this illegal. it is a obvious that the armament level of a civilian population was a major concern of anyone including the Japanese Imperial Staff.
When we say if we had to swallow one more, is the we those of us that are here and aware of what Justice Ginsburg raised as the slippery slope , or are we better off thinking what the other side can claim gun owners most accept?
If the latter it is clearly by the polls UBC. Now there is in polling here are known and often major inaccuracies, a) people answering the way they think pollster wants to hear; b) phrasing of question different over time and different polls making establishing trends difficult ands c) people being ignorant of many aspects of the issue. But in this case how much can the surveys/polls really be off in showing UBC is the least resisted of the menu of gun control?
I think so much of this depends on one thing: Georgia in about five weeks. If both seats in Georgia go Democratic than there is a plausible argument that will be made that something will need to be thrown under the bus. I dont agree that anything should be, but it is a plausible argument
I think we need to keep in mind that there is no workable scheme of national UBC that doesn't invovle a national registry, meaning we are not talking aobut UPC per se, but also establishing a national registry, which has several negative for us, and which is a goal of the other side even more helpful to them long term than UBC alone.
WE should also be aware of the successful game our side played, twice, on killing UBC by saying ok, as long as we have quid pro quo of national reciprocity on carry, which poisoned pilled UBC nicely.
so I say when we ask which will we accept, it should be -- in trade for -- in order to set the conversation as a give and take
If the latter it is clearly by the polls UBC. Now there is in polling here are known and often major inaccuracies, a) people answering the way they think pollster wants to hear; b) phrasing of question different over time and different polls making establishing trends difficult ands c) people being ignorant of many aspects of the issue. But in this case how much can the surveys/polls really be off in showing UBC is the least resisted of the menu of gun control?
I think so much of this depends on one thing: Georgia in about five weeks. If both seats in Georgia go Democratic than there is a plausible argument that will be made that something will need to be thrown under the bus. I dont agree that anything should be, but it is a plausible argument
I think we need to keep in mind that there is no workable scheme of national UBC that doesn't invovle a national registry, meaning we are not talking aobut UPC per se, but also establishing a national registry, which has several negative for us, and which is a goal of the other side even more helpful to them long term than UBC alone.
WE should also be aware of the successful game our side played, twice, on killing UBC by saying ok, as long as we have quid pro quo of national reciprocity on carry, which poisoned pilled UBC nicely.
so I say when we ask which will we accept, it should be -- in trade for -- in order to set the conversation as a give and take
they're probably quite correct the UBC, as described by the pollsters, is the least resisted gun gun control proposal.
Because they don't describe the actuality of the measure, usually only describing it by its title. And THAT leaves out a whole bunch of vital information.
Do you think they would find the same degree of public approval if they told people everything that is in the law(s)?? I don't.
How do you think people would react if they were told that in order to hand a friend one of your guns to look at, you would both have to go to the local FFL dealer, (in person, WITH the gun) and pay him "no more than $35" to process the required transfer?? AND, do it AGAIN when he gives you your own property back??
Not quite correct, we've discussed such here before. Its not that there is no workable scheme without national registry, it is that there is no scheme without national registry that is acceptable to the other side. Every time a system is proposed WITHOUT a registry component, they REFUSE to have anything to do with it. Period.
OTHER THAN to create a registry, there is no need or point to linking the person checked with ANY SPECIFIC gun. The other side simply will not accept that, or even discuss it. THEIR PLAN THEIR WAY is the only thing they will talk about.
There is no reason any govt agency needs to have on file that J.Doe (SSN, address, physical descriptors, etc) owns/ is purchasing S&W ser# 12345.
They can run a full records check and determine if J.Doe is or is not a prohibited person without any gun information at all. And if you believe in the idea of UBCs, that is what they should do, and ALL that they should do.
But that is not acceptable to those with their own vision of what UBCs should do, which includes the possibility of creating a national registration database.
They flat out LIE about what a background check can do, and when pressed, often default to "if the regular check isn't enough then we need an enhanced/extended check" which means ... nothing, really. Because a "deeper" or "enhanced" check won't stop the things a regular check won't stop, either.
When asked (as VP) why the govt didn't prosecute any significant number of people who broke the law trying to buy guns when they were prohibited, from his own lips, I saw Biden say "We don't have time for that".
Does make you wonder about how much we need new laws when the Fed Govt isn't going to "waste its time" prosecuting people who break existing Fed law. It should.
Its not like Federal cops are running short of things to arrest people for, is it??
Tennessee Gentleman said:
I'm not sure, but if a measure didn't meet SCOTUS standards, would most of the harm have been done already?
Let's say an exec had issued an EO that bump stock would be considered NFA items, but that one could avoid the tax by turning the instrument of mass death into the state. If 85% turn them in before the Sup Ct issues its decision, that EO looks like a significant harm even if everything works.
That doesn't reach the issue of whether the supreme court's posture will change in a way adverse to the right.
Kevin Rohrer
New member
The OP should have added the option of: Not one step further
I will never agree or take part if any of those options. And there is already a healthy excise tax on new guns and ammo.
I will never agree or take part if any of those options. And there is already a healthy excise tax on new guns and ammo.
That’s exactly my point. As much as I refuse to admire the man, if Mitch McConnell remains the senate leader this question is moot until the next election. We won’t have to discuss what to offer as a sacrificial lamb when gun control caucus starts warming up in unison, because the senate will be there to break up the chorus. If the senate goes in a direction more friendly to gun control, then all of our talk about not one more inch may be forced into pragmatic negotiation... no matter how much we wouldn’t like it.
While I wholeheartedly agree that I don’t want to see any new gun control, see the above. As has happened so many times in the past through unfortunate circumstance, we may have to leverage our political capital to sheepishly agree with the lesser of an evil to try and block support for much more difficult to accept legislation.
Last edited:
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
zukiphile said:
Could there be an injunction that would stay things till SCOTUS decided. Not sure how that works.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
44 AMP said:
Maybe workable is not the right word but enforceable. Without a registry there would be no way to determine whether any transfer had taken place unless the guilty party confessed. If I sold a gun to a stranger and he didn't know me from adam there would be no way to trace the gun back to me unless it was registered. Maybe if I bought it from a gun store and had the check but not if it was a private sale. Or I could say I sold it before the law was in place.
UBC to be enforceable as I see it MUST include registration.
If there is a UBC law passed,will it be just a nice idea,honor system,or will it be enforced?
Will those in charge of enforcement request/require a means of enforcement?
Will the least objectionable means of enforcement be put in place for the pleasure of the gun owner?
Given we still have a 5th Amendment, how would any LEO be able to enforce UBC if I sold you a gun?
The way I envision it,first we would all have to register every gun we have. That would be our inventory.
At any time,we would be subject to audit. Knock knock . Please show us your safe storage and the guns within.
HMMMM Mr AMP,our records show you with 17 registered guns . We see 18 guns. That there is prima facia evidence you have commited the felony of acquiring a firearm without a UBC,and you are in a heap of trouble.
Now,don't you resist these handcuffs,and now that you are,or will be under indictment,you are a prohibited person. So we are just going
to load them up
OK. I'm open to hearing a more likely scenario.
The genius of the UBC is that the mere legal requirement of a UBC doesn't logically require a registry, but the argument against it that explains why it doesn't work simultaneously argues for its expansion into a registry.
A UBC is a clever wedge argument.
There could be. Note the confusion surrounding the CA magazine limit. Most people don't follow specific cases or ever read decisions.
If you weren't reasonably certain that your bump stock or thirty round magazine was legal to possess, would you risk a felony of negligence by keeping it?
We certainly do have a number of checks on exercise of executive power, but those checks aren't a perfect and complete remedy.
A UBC is a clever wedge argument.
TG said:
There could be. Note the confusion surrounding the CA magazine limit. Most people don't follow specific cases or ever read decisions.
If you weren't reasonably certain that your bump stock or thirty round magazine was legal to possess, would you risk a felony of negligence by keeping it?
We certainly do have a number of checks on exercise of executive power, but those checks aren't a perfect and complete remedy.
And also Pittman was not a progressive ere sin tax, ie not a tobacco or alcohol tax designed to limit exercise, or confine it to a class of persons (ie confine it to upper class vis costs). Nor was it it the modern incarnation of sin tax: a government "nudge" to modify behavior justified under better population health*
In the case of current firearm proposals, the taxes, fees, and any kid of added costs either primary to, or incidental to any gun control are openly pushed as per se goods themselves as they will help reduce and reverse growth in firearms' and firearms ownership.
*"population health" is increasing supplanting "public health." "Population Health" metrics and areas of purview include happiness, crime, income inequality, and yes "restorative justice" models a whole bunch of areas not included in "public health."
Population health models assert direct government interest in a broad social interventions. Economists and sociologists in the field essentially that there is no social problem that can't be fixed with targeted taxation, or prohibitions of items (large sodas, firearms, etc)
polichy incldue And economists who work in the population health field in esses
- Status