You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
National Emergency On Guns?
- Thread starter PhotonGuy
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Sorry, big difference.
While I fully agree with President DJT on the border wall needing to be built, and I do believe it is a matter of national security, it is not protected by the constitution.
The 2A is protected by Our Constitution.
I'm sure they would try it, but it won't get past the courts, especially when it gets to the SCOTUS!
While I fully agree with President DJT on the border wall needing to be built, and I do believe it is a matter of national security, it is not protected by the constitution.
The 2A is protected by Our Constitution.
I'm sure they would try it, but it won't get past the courts, especially when it gets to the SCOTUS!
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...k-of-gop-rebellion-over-emergency-declarationSorry, big difference.
While I fully agree with President DJT on the border wall needing to be built, and I do believe it is a matter of national security, it is not protected by the constitution.
The 2A is protected by Our Constitution.
I'm sure they would try it, but it won't get past the courts, especially when it gets to the SCOTUS!
This argument is about presidential over reach, not about a wall. What's protected by the constitution is that Congress spends the $, not the POTUS.
Paul, who joins three other Senate Republicans so far in publicly backing the resolution of disapproval, said he couldn't support giving a president "extra-constitutional powers."
“I can’t vote to give the president the power to spend money that hasn’t been appropriated by Congress. We may want more money for border security, but Congress didn’t authorize it. If we take away those checks and balances, it’s a dangerous thing,” he said
Pre and post 2016 hypocrisy rings loud and clear in the halls of Congress.
Last edited:
Here is an article on this.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/20...rgency-on-guns-if-courts-back-trump-on-border
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/20...rgency-on-guns-if-courts-back-trump-on-border
I agree with what you are saying about over reach. BUT, I think he might get this done if it hits the courts. I think he can make a case that this decision of Congress is politically motivated due to the fact the main actors (Pelosi & Schumer) who are fighting it tooth and nail are on record as supporting the same thing in 2013, when obama was in office. Sure there are some differences in the language, BUT, border security was the whole crux of both requests.https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...k-of-gop-rebellion-over-emergency-declaration
This argument is about presidential over reach, not about a wall. What's protected by the constitution is that Congress spends the $, not the POTUS.
Pre and post 2016 hypocrisy rings loud and clear in the halls of Congress.
AND, I still stand by my statement that if they try to do a "national emergency" on the 2A, it will not fly.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Let’s say the antis get their wish with one of their current goals: Removing “proceed on delay” from NICS so that a transfer cannot be completed until a “proceed” is received from NICS.
At that point, the Executive can just shut NICS down. Gun transfers that rely on NICS all or in part are effectively banned. Congress can’t change that by legislation unless it can override the Executive’s veto. Changing it via litigation means lengthy litigation such that the person may be out of office before you get an answer (assuming it is a good answer).
At that point, the Executive can just shut NICS down. Gun transfers that rely on NICS all or in part are effectively banned. Congress can’t change that by legislation unless it can override the Executive’s veto. Changing it via litigation means lengthy litigation such that the person may be out of office before you get an answer (assuming it is a good answer).
It's a terrible idea but an intriguing question as far as what would happen that I considered...Let’s say the antis get their wish with one of their current goals: Removing “proceed on delay” from NICS so that a transfer cannot be completed until a “proceed” is received from NICS.
At that point, the Executive can just shut NICS down. Gun transfers that rely on NICS all or in part are effectively banned. Congress can’t change that by legislation unless it can override the Executive’s veto. Changing it via litigation means lengthy litigation such that the person may be out of office before you get an answer (assuming it is a good answer).
One thing I was thinking about is how the all the gun shops would behave, how the ATF and authorities would behave, etc.. For a real brick and mortar gun shop they really only have 2 options - close their doors (stop eating), or break the law.
I do not mean to go on a tangent about a civil war or something but I think one potential outcome, and it would probably vary place to place depending on the context of local 2A support and the local authorities (ATF or otherwise), would be abandonment of the law all together in practice. Even for the authorities, the idea of making gun sales illegal very well might push them over the edge of compliance too. JMHO
There is talk that if Trump can declare a national emergency on building a border wall that a future President who is against the 2nd Amendment can declare a national emergency on guns. This should be a cause for some alarm.
That was just Nancy Pelosi shooting-off her mouth...
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Let’s wait till it happens and pass on the Wall and political speculation.$$
- Status
- Not open for further replies.