Exec Orders and Gun Control

[Father of four]

How about...

Sec 4.(e) When an agency proposes to act through adjudication or rulemaking to preempt State law, the agency shall provide all affected State and local officials notice and an opportunity for appropriate participation in the proceedings.

Sounds like a ultimatum to me.

 

[salmonriverjohn]

It's not about stopping gun violence, it's about stopping gun ownership. If it were about stopping the violence aspect of it they would take a look at WHERE MOST gun violence occurs.
They would have to face the fact that its most prevalent in Detroit, DC, LA, Pittsburgh, Chicago and other large metro core city's. Then they would have to face the fact that most gun violence is being perpetrated by gang members and that MOST are prior felons that shouldn't have guns in the first place. Gun crimes committed by prior felons is usually a 25 to life sentence in most places. But this would mean enforcing laws already on the books wouldn't it?
There are many ways to address this without banning a type or types of firearms or magazines. Address the large population that exists day to day on mood altering drugs? Perhaps address mental disorders and the lack of facility's and funds to treat those afflicted?

Nope, their right, ban all weapons that go bang. I mean what the hell, it worked so well with heroin meth cocaine and murder and to many other so called illegal activity's to list didn't it?

 

[Father of four]

And...

Sec 4.(d) When an agency foresees the possibility of a conflict between State law and Federally protected interests within its area of regulatory responsibility, the agency shall consult, to the extent practicable, with appropriate State and local officials in an effort to avoid such a conflict.

To the extent practicable?...In another words, as much as they (feds) see fit then tough luck state and local officials?

 

[fd15k]

It is not the creating of the laws this is disturbing in that executive order. It is the ability of the fed, its agency and the congress to circumvent the rights of the state.

To be honest, I am losing my patience with you. Section 5 tells the agencies on what kind of proposals to submit to Congress, so that they don't submit some bullbubblegum that will waste time, and in the end will be in violation of whatever legal frameworks. It is then up to the Congress to craft the law, so that it does what it needs to do for the Feds to do what they would like to do, without creating a conflict with the State Powers as per the 10th Amendment. In the end, if the State feels there is such Conflict, they can sue the Feds directly in SCOTUS.

 

[Father of four]

You're misrepresenting it. Executive branch is in charge of enforcing laws that are created by Congress. The loophole is that the President can instruct the agencies not to enforce certain laws for whatever reason. The law stays the same, enforcement changes. Congress has ability to apply pressure and change that, but often chooses not to. This is also common practice at other levels of the government, from the city all the way to the feds.

"The loophole is that the President can instruct the agencies not to enforce certain laws for whatever reason. The law stays the same, enforcement changes."

So since the president didn't make the laws, just has the ability to enforce or not enforce them then its OK? we should not worry about the executive orders?

 

[fd15k]

So since the president didn't make the laws, just has the ability to enforce or not enforce them then its OK? we should not worry about the executive orders?

The worrisome question that pops up on this forum 5 times a week is whether EO can be used to ban guns. I don't see how it can be, so in that context we indeed should not worry about EOs.

 

[Father of four]

To be honest, I am losing my patience with you. Section 5 tells the agencies on what kind of proposals to submit to Congress, so that they don't submit some bullbubblegum that will waste time, and in the end will be in violation of whatever legal frameworks. It is then up to the Congress to craft the law, so that it does what it needs to do for the Feds to do what they would like to do, without creating a conflict with the State Powers as per the 10th Amendment. In the end, if the State feels there is such Conflict, they can sue the Feds directly in SCOTUS.

No problem, I do not know why they even put the word "preempt" in there like what 20 times? It must not mean they could "preempt" states laws? It must mean they are only trying to find a way to work with state laws without having a conflict, yeah?

How stupid of me to take the word "preempt" to actually mean...to take the place of. Dumb me.

 

[Father of four]

The worrisome question that pops up on this forum 5 times a week is whether EO can be used to ban guns. I don't see how it can be, so in that context we indeed should not worry about EOs.

I wonder if the American Japanese Citizens thought that back in the 30's and 40's?

 

[fd15k]

No problem, I do not know why they even put the word "preempt" in there like what 20 times. It must not mean they could "preempt" states laws? It must mean they are only trying to find a way to work with state laws without having a conflict, yeah?

How stupid of me to take the word "preempt" to actually mean...to take the place of. Dumb me.

If an agency feels that they could do their job better if they had certain authority, that's when a proposal of legislation to Congress can be made. Obviously it results in a power grab, but only by action of Congress, not through an EO. I am only debating the technical aspect of it, we have some major disagreements on philosophy which I don't want to debate anymore

 

[fd15k]

I wonder if the American Japanese Citizens thought that back in the 30's and 40's?

Have you read the War Powers Act of 1941 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia yet ?

 

[Father of four]

Me too. You win...

 

[Father of four]

Have you read the War Powers Act of 1941 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia yet ?

How about...Executive Order 9102 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Executive Order 9102 was a United States presidential executive order ordering the creation of the War Relocation Authority (WRA), the US civilian agency responsible for the forced relocation and internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. This executive order was signed by President Franklin Roosevelt on March 18, 1942, and it officially expired on June 30, 1946."

I wonder if those Japanese Citizens got to keep their firearms?

 

[fd15k]

How about...Executive Order 9102 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Executive Order 9102 was a United States presidential executive order ordering the creation of the War Relocation Authority (WRA), the US civilian agency responsible for the forced relocation and internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. This executive order was signed by President Franklin Roosevelt on March 18, 1942, and it officially expired on June 30, 1946."

I wonder if those Japanese Citizens got to keep their firearms?

You do realize that I wouldn't suggest to look at the War Powers Act of 1941 if it wasn't related to this EO ? Point being, all resources and all authority that the current president has that are not directly granted to him by the Constitution, are otherwise granted by Congress. Congress has ability to expand the authority of the president, such as... in the times of wars and emergencies. Bad EO ? Sure. Can the current president create a similar one ? Likely not. At least not until we declare a war on Iran

 

[Father of four]

Your right..we should just stop debating.

 

[Just Me]

Yeah, well the president is also supposed to be natural born in America. Look how that argument went. Holding him to the Constitution won't happen, he is above all.

Maybe Sheriff Joe can double check Obama's medical records for the signs of a c-section...

My point wasn't whether or not he was born here, it was that anyone who questioned his Constitutional eligibility to be president was made to look like an idiot. The media did not want to question his birth, his college admission documents, transcripts, or anything else that could settle the birthplace matter. So, they mocked anyone who raised the question. Therefore, I see no reason why they would question his end run on the 2A.

 

[Silver Fox]

Who is going to enforce this law? The United Nations couldn't contain Somallia. The U.S gooberment couldn't uphold the prohibition of alcohol and now the Mary-J is showing you can't stop that. Really what jury is going to find you guilty? Talking what potential military tribunals? Wait a minute.... Isn't there a clause in the new defense bill about detaining Americans Indefiantly without a public trial or something..... Naaaa it couldn't happen go back to your American idol you foolish person.

The thread is reminding me of holiday dinners with my family.

SF-

 

[JackThompson]

I read somewhere that we have been in a constant official state of war since WWII.

Meaning the war powers act has always been in full effect. I'm not 100% sure since it is only heresay, but it would change the tone of this debate quite a bit I think.

Either way, fd15k, you are putting a LOT of your credibility into this debate, and we only have about 2 weeks to see if you are right or wrong.

I hope you are right.

 

[JackThompson]

I read somewhere that we have been in a constant official state of war since WWII.

Meaning the war powers act has always been in full effect. I'm not 100% sure since it is only heresay, but it would change the tone of this debate quite a bit I think.

Either way, fd15k, you are putting a LOT of your credibility into this debate, and we only have about 2 weeks to see if you are right or wrong.

I hope you are right.

 

[fd15k]

I read somewhere that we have been in a constant official state of war since WWII.

Meaning the war powers act has always been in full effect. I'm not 100% sure since it is only heresay, but it would change the tone of this debate quite a bit I think.

Either way, fd15k, you are putting a LOT of your credibility into this debate, and we only have about 2 weeks to see if you are right or wrong.

I hope you are right.

Don't worry about me. I don't think anybody would side with me on this forum just because of some "credibility" metric. I have been wrong before, and I have admitted it. I will admit it again when necessary. The only thing that really matters is the analysis of facts and principles behind them.

 

[Father of four]

Either way, fd15k, you are putting a LOT of your credibility into this debate, and we only have about 2 weeks to see if you are right or wrong.

I hope you are right.

I may or may not have any credibility here to some people but I will say what I believe will happen anyways.



I believe that TPTB are going to do their best to put the most infringements they can get away with on Our 2nd Amendment Rights.

Unless The People stand up for their rights, they will continue to be taken.