Executive Order AWB and or CCW Ban?

[FFMedic]

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

[The Rabbi]

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.

[romma]

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!

[FFMedic]

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

[MikePGS]

Executive orders are designed to quicken laws already in effect or extend them. They can't really be used to make new legislation.

[FFMedic]

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

[jrpbullrider]

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

[rkba_net]

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.

[akodo]

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

[GigaBuist]

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.

[GigaBuist]

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.

[Nitrogen]

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.

[HuntAndFish]

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.

[GigaBuist]

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.

[Patrick Henry]

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.

[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. 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.

[jonmerritt]

ccw is up to the individual states, not the federal government

[Nitrogen]

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.

[The Rabbi]

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.

[RoadkingLarry]

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.

[The Rabbi]

I'd give them equal possibility of occurring.

[AirForceShooter]

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

[MGshaggy]

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.

[Patrick Henry]

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.

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.

[MGshaggy]

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?