Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 40

Thread: Executive Order AWB and or CCW Ban?

  1. #1
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    02-02-08
    Posts
    335

    Executive Order AWB and or CCW Ban?

    The media and pundits are now reporting Obama will use the power of executive order to reverse decissions on issues such as domestic oil drilling and stem cell reaserch. It's not too hard to imagine a new AWB or CCW ban could be there too.

    John Podesta, Obama's transition chief, said Sunday Obama is reviewing President Bush's executive orders on those issues and others as he works to undo policies enacted during eight years of Republican rule. He said the president can use such orders to move quickly on his own.

    "There's a lot that the president can do using his executive authority without waiting for congressional action, and I think we'll see the president do that," Podesta said. "I think that he feels like he has a real mandate for change. We need to get off the course that the Bush administration has set."


    FFMedic

  2. #2
    Member  
    Join Date
    10-30-03
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    3,228
    There's a limit to what the executive can do with executive orders. An AWB would be well over that limit.
    Even Pres Bush's executive order on domestic drilling was symbolic because Congress has its own prohibition, which the order cannot override.

  3. #3
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    06-28-05
    Location
    Southeastern,CT
    Posts
    3,950
    I don't think he would quite stick his neck on this one. Not without going through traditional channels at least.

    This would be the stuff revolutions are made of... Seriously!
    WWW.CCDL.US Connecticut Citizens Defense League

    "We The People" not "You The Government"!

  4. #4
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    02-02-08
    Posts
    335
    I must admit even though I was told how a bill becomes a low a dozen times in school I have a poor understanding of EOs. What are the traditional boundries and contexts?

    FFMedic

  5. #5
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    08-04-06
    Location
    Metro Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    1,471
    Executive orders are designed to quicken laws already in effect or extend them. They can't really be used to make new legislation.
    I'm such an Operator that Gecko45 has a poster of me on his wall.

  6. #6
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    02-02-08
    Posts
    335
    Mike I'm glad to hear that but too bad for us it seems John Podesta and his "boss" don't see it the same way judging by the tone of the article.

    What about sweeping import bans on gun part kits (like CIA) uses and ammo? I was under the impression George H. W. Bush did this to a degree with an EO?

    FFMedic

  7. #7
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    04-18-08
    Location
    Lampasas, TX
    Posts
    108
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Until the 1950s, there were no rules or guidelines outlining what the president could or could not do through an executive order. However, the Supreme Court ruled in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952) that Executive Order 10340 from President Harry S. Truman placing all steel mills in the country under federal control was invalid because it attempted to make law, rather than clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution. Presidents since this decision have generally been careful to cite which specific laws they are acting under when issuing new executive orders.

    It sounds like it can't be done.
    John

  8. #8
    Member  
    Join Date
    06-23-04
    Posts
    78
    An EO is simply an order from the President to a FEDERAL agency to take an action that it ALREADY HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DO UNDER FEDERAL LAW. Bush's 1989 import ban ordered the ATF to enforce laws that were already part of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

  9. #9
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    08-31-05
    Posts
    1,950
    This is an interesting comentary on power.

    Many people on the other side of the aisle decried the use of executive orders as going overboard, but when a person from that side of the aisle gets in power, that side uses the same exact power, usually ramping it up.

    Goverments don't ever requelish a power once they get it...even if they just got done saying it was badly misused before

  10. #10
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    09-27-03
    Location
    Grand Rapids, MI
    Posts
    2,336
    Bush's 1989 import ban ordered the ATF to enforce laws that were already part of the Gun Control Act of 1968.
    Yes, but it's actually pretty scary. The '68 GCA stopped importation of weapons that aren't for "sporting purposes" and the Legislature hasn't ever defined what that entails. It's entirely up to the Executive branch to decide that though that standard could be challenged through the courts.

    Obama could halt importation of all AK knock-offs, and other scary firearms, from other countries.

  11. #11
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    09-27-03
    Location
    Grand Rapids, MI
    Posts
    2,336
    Wait, I'm going to disagree with myself here.

    What he could do is prevent importation of guns, like Saiga's and WASRs that are sold with single-stack magazines UNLESS they're modified to comply with the "parts count" rules, thereby making them US manufactured rifles.

    So, the high-cap WASR-10's would be OK, but Saiga and RAA might have to alter their operations.

  12. #12
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    12-21-05
    Location
    Sachse, Texas
    Posts
    869
    Aren't you folks glad Bush grabbed all that execuetive power and nobody did anything to stop him?

    Having said that, this will never fly. Ever.

    One thing to realize. How many people do you hear pushing Obama to pass "common sense gun laws"?
    How many people do you hear NOT wanting him to pass these laws?

    Something to meditate on.
    יזכר לא עד פעם (Remember. Never Again.)

  13. #13
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    02-21-06
    Location
    Kansas City, MO
    Posts
    393
    One thing to realize. How many people do you hear pushing Obama to pass "common sense gun laws"?
    How many people do you hear NOT wanting him to pass these laws?
    That depends entirely on who you are listening to.
    NRA Benefactor
    MSSA Life Member

  14. #14
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    09-27-03
    Location
    Grand Rapids, MI
    Posts
    2,336
    Having said that, this will never fly. Ever.

    One thing to realize. How many people do you hear pushing Obama to pass "common sense gun laws"?
    How many people do you hear NOT wanting him to pass these laws?
    Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43 got away with jacking us via EO on gun import laws. I see no reason why Obama wouldn't.

  15. #15
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    01-17-07
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    143
    If I am correct the 1934 National Firearms Act already gives the Treasury Dept. (now the ATF) authority to regulate "any other weapons"....which authority they have used to such purposes as for example banning wallet holsters. (where the gun can be fired from inside the holster.) That is, unless you feel like paying a $200 tax and registering your holster!

    Although I have not read the whole law, it would seem Obama could simply order the ATF to subject ALL firearms in this country to the 1934 NFA.

    And gentlemen, there's your universal gun registration.

    By the way, if Congress does pass a law banning CCWs, they will be on good ground thanks to George W. Bush and his "Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act", which established the precedent that somehow authority to carry a gun comes from Congress. No, actually the right to carry a gun is fundamental and is protected by the 2nd amendment and the "full faith and credit" clause in the constitution requires all states to honor other states' acts, including CCWs. But, who gives a crap about the constitution right? That's why I have always opposed LEOSA because it presumes authority to regulate something already guaranteed to every free citizen under the constitution. So if Obama and his Congress ban CCW for us mere serfs, it will simply be LEOSA's logical extension.

    We could also see a revision of the NFA to increase the $200 tax. Remember, in 1934, $200 was a lot of money. The original purpose was clearly to discourage people from seeking to acquire NFA items. Adjusted for inflation, that $200 tax stamp would cost $3067.30 in 2007 (The calculator I used only went up to 2007). Imagine a $3067 tax to purchase, sell, or tranfer ANY firearm.

    No, I am not a pessimist, but the danger is very real.
    Last edited by Patrick Henry; November 10th, 2008 at 05:58 AM. Reason: additional thoughts

  16. #16
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    01-05-03
    Location
    In a well-equipped suburban bunker
    Posts
    2,467
    Any federal CCW ban or similar is going to run into courts who are going to say, as they have said on many issues before, "The States have the power to do that themselves. There is no need for Federal interference" and strike it down. Add in Heller and it's utterly a non-issue.

    I don't care if you disagree. You're wrong

    Now, a new AWB is entirely possible.
    http://SharpPointyThings.com
    http://www.MichaelZWilliamson.com

    FREEHOLD, Jan 04 from Baen Books
    THE WEAPON, Aug 05 from Baen Books
    CONFIRMED KILL, Sep 05 from HarperCollins
    BETTER TO BEG FORGIVENESS..., Winter 07 from Baen Books

    ~~~

    "The Finest battle implement ever devised." Ung the Caveman on the M1 Pointy Stick.

  17. #17
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    12-25-07
    Location
    SE Iowa
    Posts
    770
    ccw is up to the individual states, not the federal government

  18. #18
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    12-21-05
    Location
    Sachse, Texas
    Posts
    869
    huntandfish - I follow the "liberal sites" as much as I do the conservative ones. As my stance on issues straddle both.

    I have never heard more than a low rumbling for a new AWB. More conservatives want to abolish the Dept. of Education than liberals that want an AWB as far as I've seen.
    יזכר לא עד פעם (Remember. Never Again.)

  19. #19
    Member  
    Join Date
    10-30-03
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    3,228
    ccw is up to the individual states, not the federal government
    So is the drinking age and the speed limit. But that doesn't stop the Feds from giving "incentives" to conform.
    That said, I don't think they will monkey with CCW laws. Too many angry voters out there.

  20. #20
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    06-14-07
    Location
    NE Oklahoma
    Posts
    1,455
    More conservatives want to abolish the Dept. of Education than liberals that want an AWB as far as I've seen.
    And I'll take bets on which is more likely to occur.
    Some people are like slinkies. Not really good for anything but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs.

  21. #21
    Member  
    Join Date
    10-30-03
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    3,228
    I'd give them equal possibility of occurring.

  22. #22
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    10-31-04
    Location
    Sarasota Fla / Huntersville N.C.
    Posts
    2,190
    an EO banning gun stuff? Not happening.
    EO's on lots of other things, for sure. Every POTUS has used them.
    Obama has also said he would review every outstanding EO to see if it fits in his administration's policy.

    AFS
    'Qui tacet consentit': To remain silent is to consent.

  23. #23
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    05-28-05
    Posts
    389
    If I am correct the 1934 National Firearms Act already gives the Treasury Dept. (now the ATF) authority to regulate "any other weapons"....which authority they have used to such purposes as for example banning wallet holsters. (where the gun can be fired from inside the holster.) That is, unless you feel like paying a $200 tax and registering your holster!

    Although I have not read the whole law, it would seem Obama could simply order the ATF to subject ALL firearms in this country to the 1934 NFA.
    You need to read the NFA as it pertains to AOWs. The reclassification of a gun in a wallet holster as an AOW was (arguably) within the bounds of the statutory definition. There is no way Obama could order all firearms in this country subject to the NFA without new legislation.

    As for CCW, congress could pass a federal law prohibiting CCW based uon its power to regulate interstate commerce, but I don't think the political will is there. While some may see Lopez as indicating otherwise, its important to note the comparitively limited scope of the law in Lopez was a significant part of why its reversal on appeal was affirmed by the SCOTUS.

    rkba net had it absolutely right where he said:

    An EO is simply an order from the President to a FEDERAL agency to take an action that it ALREADY HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DO UNDER FEDERAL LAW. Bush's 1989 import ban ordered the ATF to enforce laws that were already part of the Gun Control Act of 1968.
    Just because you got the monkey off your back doesn't mean the circus has left town - George Carlin

  24. #24
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    01-17-07
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    143
    Quote Originally Posted by madmike
    Any federal CCW ban or similar is going to run into courts who are going to say, as they have said on many issues before, "The States have the power to do that themselves. There is no need for Federal interference" and strike it down.
    Yeah....the states have had the power to do a lot of things themselves...such as run their own schools (struck down by Brown v. Board of Ed.), determine their own voter qualifications, make their own laws regarding abortion, capital punishment, etc. The federal government has encroached into areas where it has no clear constitutional authority (gun control being one example) and the courts have more often than not aided and abetted the process -- when they didn't instigate it.

    Sorry, I don't share your faith in the conservatism of the the federal courts. The record shows otherwise. I regard the Heller judgment as lucky fluke.

    Quote Originally Posted by MGshaggy
    You need to read the NFA as it pertains to AOWs. The reclassification of a gun in a wallet holster as an AOW was (arguably) within the bounds of the statutory definition. There is no way Obama could order all firearms in this country subject to the NFA without new legislation.
    Well good, I'm not unhappy in the slightest to be wrong on that.

  25. #25
    Senior Member  
    Join Date
    05-28-05
    Posts
    389
    Any federal CCW ban or similar is going to run into courts who are going to say, as they have said on many issues before, "The States have the power to do that themselves. There is no need for Federal interference" and strike it down. Add in Heller and it's utterly a non-issue.

    I don't care if you disagree. You're wrong
    Actually mike, you're quite wrong. If you think the federal courts would strike down such federal legislation on the basis that "There is no need for Federal interference", you are mistaken and misinformed. I'd suggest a very thorough reading of Lopez and other commerce clause cases, keeping in mind how the courts can differentiate Lopez from a federal ban on CCW by the mere scope of the legislation.

    I don't think it will happen, but to say that it would be struck down because its an area traditionally regulated by state law is simply ridiculous. Federal law could apply and would override any conflicting state law. Supremacy clause anyone?
    Just because you got the monkey off your back doesn't mean the circus has left town - George Carlin

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •