thebrassmonkeys
New member
At press conference minutes ago said AG Holder , that well known fan of 2nd Am, drawing up list of executive orders on gun control for Pres Obama to sign
Newsflash from VP Biden- Exec orders
- Thread starter thebrassmonkeys
- Start date
- Status
spacecoast
New member
Sounds pretty ominous...
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-obama-might-use-executive-order-deal-guns_694984.html
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-obama-might-use-executive-order-deal-guns_694984.html
Brent, I'm not sure if you're being satirical or not, but in the interest of being clear, allow me to address the points you posted.
A president's power with respect to Executive Orders is limited to directing the enforcement of already existing laws. Because of this, a president cannot "EO away" anything that congress hasn't delegated him the power to.
No, he cannot. Congress has made no law addressing CC one way or the other with the exception of prohibiting it on Government property and schools. Because of this, the president has no power to regulate CC on non-gov't or non-school property.
So long as your Mossberg has no features that are already regulated by the NFA or '68 GCA, no he can't do anything with it either. The only guns that the president may have EO power to regulate or ban are those which fall under the NFA umbrella and/or those subject to the "sporting purpose" import test. NFA items are pretty clearly defined and I don't really see how the president could regulate them any more heavily than they already are without an act of congress. Likewise, the "sporting purpose" test has already been applied about as stringently as the law allows, so I don't really see the president being able to do much more with imports unless he gets an act of congress. Either way, a Mossberg 500 is neither an NFA item nor imported so an EO can't touch it.
Another concern that's been brought up is the importation of ammunition. The GCA of 1968 places limits on the importation of armor-piercing ammunition so an EO could theoretically affect AP ammo. However, AP ammo is clearly defined by federal law and pretty much anything that meets the definition is already verboten. The Russian and Chinese ammo import bans of the Clinton administration were not enacted via congressional act nor EO, but rather through trade agreements with the importing nations.
About the only meaningful gun control that I can see President Obama trying to accomplish through Executive Order is directing the ATF to revisit the "sporting purpose" test in order to broaden the 1989 Assault Weapon Import Ban. However, the ATF has already banned just about everything that they have the authority to via their various rulings.
It seems obvious to me that there are certainly more firearms that the ATF would like to ban, the Saiga 12 shotgun comes immediately to mind, but they've as of yet found an excuse to do so. Most will remember the potential shotgun features that the ATF toyed with banning a year or so ago. It was pretty obvious to me that the proposals were aimed at semi-auto shotguns like the Saiga 12, but even so it couldn't find any features of a stock Saiga that closely enough resembled an "assault weapon" feature to give them a sufficient excuse to ban it. Not only that, but the ATF also got their proverbial hand smacked by congress for even considering further bans by section 541 of the Fiscal Year 2012 Agriculture, CJS and THUD Appropriations bills.
So, while the President might be able to take some gun-control oriented measures via EO, they will be limited to relatively minor ones. Contrary to what some people seem to fear, President Obama is not a king and he cannot simply wave his hand or strike his pen to paper and create sweeping, Feinsteinian (yes, I just made up the word Feinsteinian) gun control measures without the collaboration of congress.
A president's power with respect to Executive Orders is limited to directing the enforcement of already existing laws. Because of this, a president cannot "EO away" anything that congress hasn't delegated him the power to.
No, he cannot. Congress has made no law addressing CC one way or the other with the exception of prohibiting it on Government property and schools. Because of this, the president has no power to regulate CC on non-gov't or non-school property.
So long as your Mossberg has no features that are already regulated by the NFA or '68 GCA, no he can't do anything with it either. The only guns that the president may have EO power to regulate or ban are those which fall under the NFA umbrella and/or those subject to the "sporting purpose" import test. NFA items are pretty clearly defined and I don't really see how the president could regulate them any more heavily than they already are without an act of congress. Likewise, the "sporting purpose" test has already been applied about as stringently as the law allows, so I don't really see the president being able to do much more with imports unless he gets an act of congress. Either way, a Mossberg 500 is neither an NFA item nor imported so an EO can't touch it.
Another concern that's been brought up is the importation of ammunition. The GCA of 1968 places limits on the importation of armor-piercing ammunition so an EO could theoretically affect AP ammo. However, AP ammo is clearly defined by federal law and pretty much anything that meets the definition is already verboten. The Russian and Chinese ammo import bans of the Clinton administration were not enacted via congressional act nor EO, but rather through trade agreements with the importing nations.
About the only meaningful gun control that I can see President Obama trying to accomplish through Executive Order is directing the ATF to revisit the "sporting purpose" test in order to broaden the 1989 Assault Weapon Import Ban. However, the ATF has already banned just about everything that they have the authority to via their various rulings.
It seems obvious to me that there are certainly more firearms that the ATF would like to ban, the Saiga 12 shotgun comes immediately to mind, but they've as of yet found an excuse to do so. Most will remember the potential shotgun features that the ATF toyed with banning a year or so ago. It was pretty obvious to me that the proposals were aimed at semi-auto shotguns like the Saiga 12, but even so it couldn't find any features of a stock Saiga that closely enough resembled an "assault weapon" feature to give them a sufficient excuse to ban it. Not only that, but the ATF also got their proverbial hand smacked by congress for even considering further bans by section 541 of the Fiscal Year 2012 Agriculture, CJS and THUD Appropriations bills.
So, while the President might be able to take some gun-control oriented measures via EO, they will be limited to relatively minor ones. Contrary to what some people seem to fear, President Obama is not a king and he cannot simply wave his hand or strike his pen to paper and create sweeping, Feinsteinian (yes, I just made up the word Feinsteinian) gun control measures without the collaboration of congress.
zincwarrior
New member
There also the courts.
thebrassmonkeys
New member
How about stopping the sale of surplus ammo from federally owned factories like Lake City or suspending CMP Sales of guns,parts and ammo, reallocating background check ATF staff to create an unmanageable backlog, using commerce clause to regulate interstate tranactions.
What webleymkv said above is correct. Does that mean that Obama will not try it? He could try to put in an EO but it would undoubtedly be challenged in court. Unfortunately that could take years to wind through the courts and it would screw gun owners in the meantime. That would give Obama an immediate fix (albeit temporary) and allow the Dems time to work on a real law to screw gun owners.
CharlieDeltaJuliet
New member
Presspics, use the word Anti, nor Dem or Democrat. That are many,many Democrats against this recent movement, we need to stay united as gun owners first.
Although I do agree that the President might try something that isn't exactly in his power, knowing that it would take years to overturn. My question is if something like that happened, does the Order go into effect even if challenged? We have one hell of a fight on our hands, we need to be smart and support our RTKBA orginizations. Just my $0.02
Although I do agree that the President might try something that isn't exactly in his power, knowing that it would take years to overturn. My question is if something like that happened, does the Order go into effect even if challenged? We have one hell of a fight on our hands, we need to be smart and support our RTKBA orginizations. Just my $0.02
President Obama would have more in his way than just the courts. An overreaching EO is a usurpation of the power that is delegated to congress rather than the presidency. Even in cases where the usurper is a member of the majority party, congress has historically guarded their power rather jealously when EO's become too overreaching. The jealous guarding of congressional power is wise on the part of congress because allowing a president to overstep his authority sets a precedent for future administrations.
It would not serve congressional Democrats well to allow President Obama to overstep his authority because, while "their guy" may be in the White House now, such will certainly not be the case forever. If Democrats allow the current president to usurp congressional power, they will likely find themselves in an extremely unfavorable position in the future when a Republican is president and "the shoe is on the other foot."
Also, it must be remembered that the Democrat party does not control the entire legislative branch of the government. The Republicans still control the house and I very much doubt that they would take kindly to the president overstepping his authority. Similarly, many congressional Democrats come from politically moderate or conservative districts where gun control remains a losing issue. They're already facing guilt by association for being members of the same party as a president who publicly supports a position unpopular in their district, allowing him to actually act on said position could only serve to hurt their chances for re-election. Remember, Obama may not need to worry about getting re-elected anymore, but congress still does and 2014 isn't all that far away.
carguychris
New member
The Lake City Army Ammunition Plant (LCAAP) may be government-owned, but it is operated under contract by the Olin Corporation, owners of the Winchester trademark. Outside sales of LCAAP ammo are presumably governed by the contract with Olin, and it is likely that an attempt by the government to abrogate that contract would result in swift and forceful legal action by Olin.
It is unclear to me whether the executive branch has the authority to do so. As I understand it, the CMP is a quasi-private, self-funded, self-managed organization.
Furthermore, very few people outside of the shooting community- and relatively few people within the community- even realize that the CMP exists. What good would this do for the executive branch? Such a shutdown would probably become a prime example of the so-called Barbra Streisand effect.
If an FFL received a "Delayed" NICS response that is not resolved after 3 business days, he or she- if allowed by state law- has the option of allowing the sale to proceed. If the response subsequently comes back negative, the firearm is supposed to be retrieved if possible, but the key phrase is "if possible"- good luck with that.
This process serves as a built-in disincentive against disingenuous attempts by hostile bureaucrats to stop firearms sales by creating logjams in the system.
This describes a power of Congress, not the POTUS. See Webleymkv's post above.
The courts can move very fast when circumstances warrant it. Witness Bush v. Gore.
Last edited:
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/01/09/why-joe-biden-needs-the-nra/?hpid=z2
Good analysis of the Biden blather. Some polling suggests that the outrage hasn't really moved attitudes that much and perhaps starting strong is a ploy for some smaller regulations.
I also wonder if Biden is blabbing out of school or trying to push the issue. He's done that before.
Good analysis of the Biden blather. Some polling suggests that the outrage hasn't really moved attitudes that much and perhaps starting strong is a ploy for some smaller regulations.
I also wonder if Biden is blabbing out of school or trying to push the issue. He's done that before.
Yes, I assume he can do what he wishes and then it can be challenged by the Congress and/or in the courts. Obviously based on the current climate in Washington it is difficult to speculate on what Congress might do.
However, the scary thing to me is that the matter can be challenged in the Courts and 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?
Alabama Shooter
New member
I hope he brings it.
It is high time we had a court case about executive over reach in these EOs. Well past time really.
It is high time we had a court case about executive over reach in these EOs. Well past time really.
D.W. Drang
New member
Joe Pike said
Anyone know what Ken Starr is up to these days?
- Status