Gun control through Executive Order hard to do

[baldeagle]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... #pagebreak" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The 2nd Amendment is one area (one of very few) where Congress has not ceded its power to the Executive Branch.

[Jumping Frog]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... #pagebreak

The 2nd Amendment is one area (one of very few) where Congress has not ceded its power to the Executive Branch.

That comes from Congress distrusting an out-of-control BATFE for over 30 years . . .

[stroo]

While it isn't easy if you want to follow the law, it isn't that difficult if you are willing to push the limits of the law to the breaking point. Obama has already showed that he is willing to do that. I do not take much comfort from this article.

[Andrew]

While it isn't easy if you want to follow the law, it isn't that difficult if you are willing to push the limits of the law to the breaking point. Obama has already showed that he is willing to do that. I do not take much comfort from this article.

The president can't wave an Executive Order wand and take away your guns. Any program, action, or agency that he creates through an EO still has to be funded. Our Congressfolk have shown in the past no fear at all in declining to fund or reducing existing funding to stymie EOs.

[texanjoker]

I am thinking the President will do exec order ceasing gun purchases. He gets to say he did it, and then it's challenged in court. When it is reversed he can say he tried. However, during the process the ones that want to remain law abiding may get screwed over.

[OldCannon]

I am thinking the President will do exec order ceasing gun purchases.

Except he can't really do that. If it was a blanket directive, it would be tossed out immediately in courts.

His only legal path is to make things INCREDIBLY difficult for FFLs. I expect to see a lot of nonsense on 22 Jan.

[stroo]

Our Congressfolk have shown in the past no fear at all in declining to fund or reducing existing funding to stymie EOs.

Given the debt negotiations that have taken place the last few years, I am not sure I buy that.

I agree that I do not see any way for him to issue an EO that simply takes away our guns. He may however be able to issue an EO or ATF reg that places semi-automatic rifles under the definition of a machine gun for NFA purposes. While that would be pushing the current definition to ridiculous lengths, it would not surprise me coming out of this President.

[stroo]

For those of you of the don't worry it too difficult to do gun control persuasion, this article will reinforce your beliefs: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 21032.html.

I hope your\ are right but I still think Obama will act through EOs or regs rather than legislation. Political judo.

[G.A. Heath]

First up an EO can be used to change things like the sporting purposes test, so as to determine that no imports qualify, or to modify C&R guidelines so that few if any new C&R firearms get imported. Additionally an EO can be used to modify the FFL licensing process so that it doesn't happen. An EO can also be used to prevent ATF approval for new firearms and parts, resecnd previous approvals, ect. An EO can also be used to generally interfere with how Class III stuff is determined and could lead to semi-autoss being classified as such until a court challenge returns our current situation (if it doesn't make things worse).

EOs can be very scary because they are not a constitutionally defined act and are often thought of as the president making laws w/o congress, what they actually are is something quite different. An EO is an order from the head of the executive branch to the executive branch on how to implement/enforce the law. As such if the president says "Don't do XYZ" or "Do XYZ in a way that get's ABC results" you can challenge the order, and/or results, in court but you really never know how the courts will act and in the end it is the executive branch that enforces what the courts decide.

[Ericstac]

I'm starting to think it will be a very minor burden to us gun holders, if anything at all.. Heck it might be like another poster said where he does tries something so far fetched it gets turned down months later yet he got all the hurrays from the libs for trying.

Anything too drastic would mean job loss, businesses closed down, loss of revenue stream for the govt, I just don't see that being a good thing.. But then again it is Obama we are talking bout

[DEB]

I don't know. Didn't Obama do an EO for the reporting of over two semiautomatic rifles being sold at one time within any border state? I also read, don't know for sure, that the Congress did not fund that. Another question is to the FFLs, aren't you required to report the two rifles being sold at one time? Wasn't this an EO? This isn't going to any court that I have heard of. Again I could be wrong as I often am, just ask my wife, LOL. It appears to me that Obama could issue almost any EO he pleases, without consequence. And he has, look at the military, EO removing the Don't ask Don't tell for instance, EO informing the Justice Dept not to defend the DOMA. Regardless of personal beliefs these were EOs correct? No mass complaints. So, EO to raise the price on obtaining your FFL to something like $2000 a year? Walmart and etc could comply, but what about our very own Cannon? Requiring a C&R license on anyone having any type of military rifle along with the requisite inspections/log book registering, only $25 right? BATF in your home anyone? How about blackpowder only ammunition? I don't trust the powers that be and especially those who are supposed to adequately inform the people. I used to believe that our political leadership would not cross certain lines. But and especially after the fall of the Soviet Union, it seems at least to me, that our media, voluntarily, exceed the Pravda of old.

[Liberty]

The Original Don't Ask Don't Tell was an executive order.

[chasfm11]

I'm starting to think it will be a very minor burden to us gun holders, if anything at all.. Heck it might be like another poster said where he does tries something so far fetched it gets turned down months later yet he got all the hurrays from the libs for trying.

Anything too drastic would mean job loss, businesses closed down, loss of revenue stream for the govt, I just don't see that being a good thing.. But then again it is Obama we are talking bout

I'm taking an opposite view on several levels.

1. The power grabs within the White House since 2009 have been extraordinary. Any other President attempting to take over a car company, for example, would likely have been impeached. So far, such actions have been done with impunity. If anything, the last election emboldened the President.
2. President Obama shows no signs of moving to the center after his election as some projected that he would in order to preserve his legacy. He has demonstrated that he is an idealogue with an agenda and that agenda includes gun control. His support for the UN gun control treaty confirms that.
3. The Keystone Pipeline and other measures would have increased revenue to the government but were rejected on an ideological basis. So far, the President isn't being held accountable for the loss of jobs by anyone and I don't see anything on the horizon that will change that short of a total collapse of the economy.

He is an opportunist. He will go as far as the public sentiment after Sandy Hook allows him to go. I fear that is a lot further than any pro 2nd amendment person would prefer. I would remind you that TARP was a wildly unpopular bill and it still passed.

[G26ster]

I would remind you that TARP was a wildly unpopular bill and it still passed.

I'm not sure in what context you meant this, but for the record TARP was signed into law under G.W. Bush.

[DEB]

The Original Don't Ask Don't Tell was an executive order.

There you go, and thanks for the reminder, I did not remember that. IMO EOs should have a quick expiration time limit imposed, (30 days?), until the congress/senate could take it up.