Thread: Guns banned by executive order

Holy smokes gun boards are busy places these days. A common theme I've seen is the idea of Obama banning guns by executive order. I have to admit I had to look up what executive orders were all about.

So here is the bottom line: The POTUS can not ban guns by executive order. Executive orders apply only to government employees whose agency is affected by the order. An executive order does not and can not be extended to the general citizenry. It's Congresses' job to make laws that apply to all the people.

So enough with the Obama banning guns baloney. As we all know the folks to keep an eye on is Congress.


Are Executive Orders Constitutional? – Tenth Amendment Center Blog

In Article I Section I of the Constitution it is clear that all legislative powers reside in Congress. The Executive Branch has the responsibility to execute the laws passed by Congess. An Executive Order is not legislation it is a order issued by the President to enforce laws passed by the Congress. While Executive Orders are not mentioned in the Constitution it has been a precedent for a President to issue Executive Orders that he deems to be necessary and proper.

The “Necessary and Proper” clause in the Constitution found in Article I Section 8 was not intended to give Congress and the authority to do whatever they felt was a good idea. This clause meant that they had the authority to pass any legislation that was necessary and proper to implement the powers delegated to the United States in Article I Section 8.

The President is the Chief Administrative Officer of the Executive Branch of Government and has the authority to implement policies and procedures that are neccesary for the administration of the duties and responsibilities that have been assigned to him by the Constitution. Policies and procedures passed by Congress are called laws and effect all of the people. An Executive Order is a policy or procedure issued by the President that is a regulation that applies only to employess of the Executive Branch of government.

Any Executive Order that has any effect on individuals that are not government employees is a violation of Article I Section I whenever the President issues an Executive Order that extends to all of the people. Congress has a responsibility to the people to veto any Executive Order that has any effect on non governmental employees.

When a President issues an unconstitutional Executive Order and Congress allows the order to stand they are violating their oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.


Presidential Executive Orders – How the President of the United States directs the government agencies through executive orders

A presidential executive order (EO) is a directive issued to federal agencies, department heads, or other federal employees by the President of the United States under his statutory or constitutional powers.

In many ways, presidential executive orders are similar to written orders, or instructions issued by the president of a corporation to its department heads or directors.

Thirty days after being published in the Federal Register, executive orders become law. While they do bypass the U.S. Congress and the standard legislative law making process, no part of an executive order may direct the agencies to conduct illegal or unconstitutional activities.

President George Washington issued the first executive order in 1789. Since then, all U.S. presidents have issued executive orders, ranging from Presidents Adams, Madison and Monroe, who issued only one each, to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who issued 3,522 executive orders.

Reasons for Issuing Executive Orders

Presidents typically issue executive orders for one of these purposes:

1. Operational management of the executive branch
2. Operational management of federal agencies or officials
3. To carry out statutory or constitutional presidential responsibilities

and they never effect "We the People" its just for federal agencies and officals right

Good info

Remind us exactly by what method did FDR put Japanese Americans into internment camps?
How about the method used by FDR to confiscate gold?

After you get those anwsers come back and tell us again how Obama cannot do something via an executive order.

And we know how well the present POTUS follows/upholds the Constitution!

Finally some common sense. I've argued this point with some real idiots on other boards. They just don't get it....

not like obozo really cares what anything says if he doesn't agree with it

Eric Holder: executive orders on gun control? | WashingtonExaminer.com

Earl Ofari Hutchinson: What If President Obama Simply Issued Executive Orders Toughening Gun Curbs?


Funny to watch liberals defend obammy and the constitution in a post constituional world. You start to break the law in one part and the rest is done shortly after. To little to late.

While not a gun ban, he could sure hurt the industry with executive orders.

What would happen if he told the FBI to quit processing NICS checks?
Or, not quite as bad, but tell the FBI to only do NICS checks by certified mail, not the phone.

Anyways, it doesn't take someone too creative to find ways that an Executive Order could be issued that would really be a huge pain in the *** of gun shops, and that would trickle down to gun owners.

1989 President Bush banned the importation and ownership of a variety of rifles. The "sporting purposes" provision led ATF to ban the importation of several semiautomatic versions of assault weapons possessing military features such as bayonet mounts, pistol grips, night sights, (high capacity magazines, flash arrestors, certain stocks, barrel length

1998 President Clinton banned the importation of more than 50 semiautomatic "assault weapons"

2001 President Clinton banned the importation of "assault pistols" and tightened licensing rules on gun dealers.

All these were done by Executive Order.

So, tell me again how it can't be done.

Originally Posted by Bigfoot

1989 President Bush banned the importation and ownership of a variety of rifles. The "sporting purposes" provision led ATF to ban the importation of several semiautomatic versions of assault weapons possessing military features such as bayonet mounts, pistol grips, night sights, (high capacity magazines, flash arrestors, certain stocks, barrel length

1998 President Clinton banned the importation of more than 50 semiautomatic "assault weapons"

2001 President Clinton banned the importation of "assault pistols" and tightened licensing rules on gun dealers.

All these were done by Executive Order.

So, tell me again how it can't be done.

Will History Repeat Itself?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/j.../guns_4-6.html

Originally Posted by Bigfoot

1989 President Bush banned the importation and ownership of a variety of rifles.

Exactly what guns were ban from OWNERSHIP in 1989?

Originally Posted by Bigfoot

1989 President Bush banned the importation and ownership of a variety of rifles. The "sporting purposes" provision led ATF to ban the importation of several semiautomatic versions of assault weapons possessing military features such as bayonet mounts, pistol grips, night sights, (high capacity magazines, flash arrestors, certain stocks, barrel length

1998 President Clinton banned the importation of more than 50 semiautomatic "assault weapons"

2001 President Clinton banned the importation of "assault pistols" and tightened licensing rules on gun dealers.

All these were done by Executive Order.

So, tell me again how it can't be done.

The "non-sporting" business is actually created by Congress. The ATF's authority to decide what's non-sporting is also sanctioned by Congress. All those executive orders did was to tell ATF to issue more opinions on what's sporting and what is not.

Now, it has been asked what ownership was actually banned... I'd like to know that too.

Adding self to "listen" to the thread.

Peter

Originally Posted by fd15k

The "non-sporting" business is actually created by Congress. The ATF's authority to decide what's non-sporting is also sanctioned by Congress. All those executive orders did was to tell ATF to issue more opinions on what's sporting and what is not.

Now, it has been asked what ownership was actually banned... I'd like to know that too.

While what constitutes "sporting purpose" was originally determined by Congress, that determination is now within the purview of the Attorney General.
As recently as May of 2011 it was reiterated in the "study-on-the-importality-of-certain-shotguns" here:
http://www.atf.gov/publications/fire...n-shotguns.pdf
Note paragraph 2 on page 4 of the PDF.

Sporting Purpose
Determination of whether a firearm is generally accepted for use in sporting purposes is the responsibility of the Attorney General (formerly the Secretary of the Treasury). As in the
previous studies, the working group considered the historical context of “sporting purpose” and
that Congress originally intended a narrow interpretation of sporting purpose under § 925(d)(3).

It seems that under the precedent of the ATF's working group system, and Congress' narrow interpretation of the "sporting purpose" definition, that a case could be made for re-classification of semi-autos that are capable of accepting a .mil type of magazine, to NFA arms status.

Bear in mind that "3-gun" and other sports that involve combat and law enforcement simulations are not recognized as "sporting events" by the BATFE, and neither is "plinking."

While many on the left may not see this as an unreasonable infringement following the latest school-shooting tragedy, please remember that with one's enrollment in the NFA tax stamp system, in addition to the cost of the stamp, the tax stamp holder;
surrenders certain 4th Amendment protections,
surrenders freedom of movement with said firearm,
submits to restrictions on purchase and sale of said firearm, and,
submits to federal registration of the firearm and ownership.

Do these constitute infringement? I certainly believe they do!

Furthermore, if Congress doesn't pass law(s) that satisfy obama, holder, the VPC, and brady.org, we may well see another fight in Congress over whether or not to sanction Mr. Holder and his out-of-control DOJ/ATF, that acted under the direction of obama and an Executive Order.

And if the results of the Fast and Furious investigation have been any indicator, we are SCREWED!

Originally Posted by fd15k

The "non-sporting" business is actually created by Congress. The ATF's authority to decide what's non-sporting is also sanctioned by Congress. All those executive orders did was to tell ATF to issue more opinions on what's sporting and what is not.

Now, it has been asked what ownership was actually banned... I'd like to know that too.

And I've asked some questions as well that none of you Obama backers want to touch with a ten foot pole.

The fact is that FDR was and still is an idol to vast majority of democrats, when in reality the man was a constitution crapping fascist. He issued an executive order to arrest and detain tens of thousands of American citizens simply because of their national origin, violating their constitutional rights.

Obama has already shown his own true colors in doing what he wants as well, and that all he needs is some crisis to provide cover. One example I can think of right of the top of my head is the GM bankrupcy, where bond holders were pushed aside to give the unions priority in standing, thus violating established bankrupcy laws as well as long standing legal precedent.

Originally Posted by Jamie6.5

While many on the left may not see this as an unreasonable infringement following the latest school-shooting tragedy, please remember that with one's enrollment in the NFA tax stamp system, in addition to the cost of the stamp, the tax stamp holder;
surrenders certain 4th Amendment protections, FALSE, please quote where I give up ANY of my rights by owning NFA items.
surrenders freedom of movement with said firearm, Half true. Depends on what items you are talking about. Not all have the same rules. Also it only limits certain kind of travel, not all.
submits to restrictions on purchase and sale of said firearm, and, Not sure what you mean here so I can not comment.
submits to federal registration of the firearm and ownership. This one is a fact.

Do these constitute infringement? I certainly believe they do! I totally agree with this but please get the above facts correct.

Made some edits.

Originally Posted by Nwcid

Originally Posted by Jamie6.5 View Post
While many on the left may not see this as an unreasonable infringement following the latest school-shooting tragedy, please remember that with one's enrollment in the NFA tax stamp system, in addition to the cost of the stamp, the tax stamp holder;
surrenders certain 4th Amendment protections, FALSE, please quote where I give up ANY of my rights by owning NFA items.

During interstate transport of an NFA item. See the next quotation.

Originally Posted by Nwcid

surrenders freedom of movement with said firearm, Half true. Depends on what items you are talking about. Not all have the same rules. Also it only limits certain kind of travel, not all.

Interstate travel with most NFA items, per:
Q: Does the registered owner of a destructive device, machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle need authorization to lawfully transport such items interstate?
Yes, unless the owner is a qualified dealer, manufacturer or importer, or a licensed collector transporting only curios or relics. Prior approval must be obtained, even if the move is temporary. Approval is requested by either submitting a letter containing all necessary information, or by submitting ATF Form 5320.20 to the Bureau of ATF, NFA Branch. Possession of the firearms also must comply with all State and local laws.

[18 U.S.C. 922(a) (4), 27 CFR 478.28]
This also goes to the 4th amendment comment above, in that you may (if stopped) be required by local LE to submit to a vehicle search during interstate transport.

Originally Posted by Nwcid

submits to restrictions on purchase and sale of said firearm, and, Not sure what you mean here so I can not comment.

You can't sell it to just anyone. They (the purchaser) must go through the same screening process and LE approval you did when you bought it, and get their stamp. So, do all states have to create "shall issue" laws for ATF/NFA approval?

Originally Posted by Nwcid

submits to federal registration of the firearm and ownership. This one is a fact.

Originally Posted by Nwcid

Do these constitute infringement? I certainly believe they do! I totally agree with this but please get the above facts correct.

This is a good thread... So far!

I would like to think that the premise of the OP is correct.... BUT history has shown (at least to me anyway) that laws, rules, and regulations are ONLY observed by law abiding, civilized citizens. I would contend that there are too many in positions of power that are all too consumed with power and megolomania, and consider themselves elite and "chosen" by whatever "god" they serve, and are NOT law abiding unless it suits their purposes.

Prime examples have already been given on the abuse of E.O. and "Priveldge". Running guns accross the border was/is illegal and the DOJ just keeps on rollin', don't they? The prior passed GCA's on their very premise "infringe" on our 2A rights, and survive on smarmy word games and "mental masturbation" scenereo's of "what if", "legitimate need", "sporting purposes", "save our children", etc.

I would like to think those ELECTED to our leadership positions would indeed uphold the U.S. Constitution, but as former President Geo. HW Bush (whom the left loathes) said, its just a GAWDDAMNED PIECE OF PAPER! (When reminded by aides that one of his desired actions would violate the Constitution) Sounds like an angry Progressive who thinks the Constitution is "living and breathing", and would rather dispense with that pesky "ammendment process" to change it legally.

In the latter times, men shall wax worse and worse, they shall be covenant breakers, and honor not the oaths they swore upon the blood of their sons... this practice is just a breath away from being wholly accepted as normal and common practice by the general population. Do any of you seriously believe the current leadership is above the same attitude and actions demonstrated by history?..... Really?

Incredibly, we still have a Republic (barely)... can we keep it?