TexasCHLforum.com

Okay we keep hearing about obama using an Executive Order for gun control. Now I don't know much about Politics or powers one possess, but is this something that could be done. I hear some say he can't get it done even with Executive Order cause it doesn't carry the power too. Or there is only so much an Executive Order can be used for and gun control isn't one of them. What are your thoughts on this or knowledge of Executive Order's and what could be done with them, also even against them cause I know a few have been overturned in the past.

Frankly, I'd say "Don't Speculate." Executive orders are a different class of things from statutory laws, so there's a lot of breadth in interpreting what can/can't be done and how to react to it. For now I would say to constrain your energy to working with your federal and state representatives to explain your standing and what you would ask them to do.

I'm not sure, but I believe that an Executive Order can be suspended by the courts if there is a legal/constitutional question. But I'm already way in over my head at this point, so maybe somebody who actually knows something can chime in.

Charles has asked us to tone down the rhetoric. I find that I am incapable of talking about this particular topic in anything other than absolute terms because I don't think one can sugarcoat just how serious it is. So with that in mind, I'll just bow out and go find something less provocative to talk about.

The liberal win.

Tone it down here....fine...understand. Do not under any circumstances tone it down with your representatives. They are the key to all of this even the EO. Speak politely but forthrightly. Do not mince words.

All that aside...everyone should be formulating plan B, C, and maybe even D. Have a plan. Be smart. Be safe.

just got down reading this article directly related to this subject. Don't vouch for accuracy of this at all, but it sure makes for "interesting" reading.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/obamas-secre ... your-guns/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The way the government works is that Congress makes the laws. The President faithfully executes the laws. The President can't even buy gasoline to fill up his big black car unless Congress has OK'd it.

The source of authority for an Executive Order has to be either within the enumerated powers of the President in Article 2 or in statute passed by Congress granting authority.

Article 2, Section 2:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Section 3:

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment , he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Everything else comes from a Congressional grant of authority.

You can be sure that the DOJ and General Counsels of each agency and department are scouring the statutes authorizing their activities for ways to make gun possession or ownership more onerous, more expensive, risky, dangerous, etc.

I have no idea what all may be in all those statutes already passed. Maybe the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development decides that no firearms shall be possessed in dwellings on which the US has an insured or guaranteed mortgage. I list this as an example without any idea whether that authority exists.

The President knows full well he will not be getting any legislation from Congress on this. He doesn't even want them to pass a budget which they have not for 3 years now, in violation of their own laws.

He'll do what he can while he can, and Congress can go home for all he cares.

I will support and defend the Constitution. It would be nice if the government would do so as well.

Ted Cruz announced today he will fight an EO

The Annoyed Man wrote:Charles has asked us to tone down the rhetoric. I find that I am incapable of talking about this particular topic in anything other than absolute terms because I don't think one can sugarcoat just how serious it is. So with that in mind, I'll just bow out and go find something less provocative to talk about.

The liberal win.

Keep in mind that if this had all happened in 2008, we would have been helpless to do ANYTHING while the supermajority passed everything they WISH they could pass now. We have a fight on our hands this time, but at least we're in the ring.

Do Executive Orders have to be honored/followed?

Exhibit 1: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_off ... acilities/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Closure Of Guantanamo Detention Facilities

EXECUTIVE ORDER -- REVIEW AND DISPOSITION OF INDIVIDUALS DETAINED AT THE GUANTÁNAMO BAY NAVAL BASE AND CLOSURE OF DETENTION FACILITIES

Here's an example where Obama does not abide by his own executive order...of course, they (white house gang) say they are impeded by current law - The 2011 Defense Authorization Bill places restrictions on the transfer of Guantanamo prisoners to the mainland or to other foreign countries, thus impeding the closure of the detention facility...

So, they've already made the case that EOs can't be applied when there is a conflict with current law!

Slowplay wrote:Do Executive Orders have to be honored/followed?

The executive branch enforces the rules. Do you think Holder (FBI) or Geithner (ATF) or Napolitano (DHS) will refuse to enforce any order Obama issues?

In the interest of "toning down the rhetoric", I simply say that I will not recognize any such Executive Order to be valid or legal and will likely consider the Federal Government to be an illegitmate regime. No threats, no ranting, no huffing and puffing. Simply, it's not my government any more.

Furthermore, I strongly feel that when posting on a forum such as this, which is generously provided and operated, we are bound to respect the wishes of those who are our hosts.

Jeff B.

Mr. JALLEN, (or others that might have the answer)

Thank you sir for posting the EO info you posted. I have a somewhat simple question but guessing there is a complicated answer. If a EO is put into effect, what parties can object to it? is there any type of an appeal system? Would it be something that would be visited upon by the Supreme Court? Or does the buck simply stop there and no contest is given or allowed to be given? Please forgive my ignorance on the subject. Just wondering from a curiosity and legal perspective.

Thank you for your wisdom, comments.
Texasrpbrock

Texasrpbrock wrote:Mr. JALLEN, (or others that might have the answer)

Thank you sir for posting the EO info you posted. I have a somewhat simple question but guessing there is a complicated answer. If a EO is put into effect, what parties can object to it? is there any type of an appeal system? Would it be something that would be visited upon by the Supreme Court? Or does the buck simply stop there and no contest is given or allowed to be given? Please forgive my ignorance on the subject. Just wondering from a curiosity and legal perspective.

Thank you for your wisdom, comments.
Texasrpbrock

well, im not great on this stuff so i can only guess. there is the "cliff" and budget cuts looming. the house can basicly perform a budget cut on the enforcing party (homeland or atf) and lable it as a cost reduction measure to meet budget needs.

Slowplay wrote:Do Executive Orders have to be honored/followed?

Exhibit 1: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_off ... acilities/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Closure Of Guantanamo Detention Facilities

EXECUTIVE ORDER -- REVIEW AND DISPOSITION OF INDIVIDUALS DETAINED AT THE GUANTÁNAMO BAY NAVAL BASE AND CLOSURE OF DETENTION FACILITIES

Here's an example where Obama does not abide by his own executive order...of course, they (white house gang) say they are impeded by current law - The 2011 Defense Authorization Bill places restrictions on the transfer of Guantanamo prisoners to the mainland or to other foreign countries, thus impeding the closure of the detention facility...

So, they've already made the case that EOs can't be applied when there is a conflict with current law!

The reason this EO never went anywhere is because congress countermanded and defunded it.

They specifically banned any funds to go to placing detainees from Guantanamo to the US.