Say a Republican becomes new Prez. Can he Ex Action overturn anti gun laws like in Cali, DC, Conneti

[chemist]

It's important that the law not be federalized any more than it already is - if one prez could claim preemption to void those restrictive CA state laws, the next one could do the opposite and impose nationwide restrictions.

That's why the 10th was included in the Bill of Rights:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

 

[bbbass]

The Prez is the Chief Executive of the nation. As such, he cannot make law, but he does direct the actions of the federal agencies. So if he says to ICE "don't deport", then they don't. Etc. When he says he is banning coal, that goes thru the EPA regulations. Etc. This is a creative, behind our backs method of pushing agendas.

Any policy change regarding BATF firearms regulations, not laws, would have to be nationwide and cannot focus on any particular state.

If we want to get control of executive actions, we are going to need Congress to abolish the source of that power... the federal departments of this n that. Good luck.

 

[pdx210]

Let's say a Republican gets elected to White House. Can he then by executive action remove laws that are anti gun and anti 2A in states such as Conn., Cali, Illinois, etc.?Brutus out

No. Those are State Laws.

NO, most people misunderstand executive Orders. EO's are legally binding orders given by the President to Federal Administrative Agencies. Executive Orders are used to direct federal agencies and officials in their execution of congressional established laws or policies.

As such EO's are not laws applicable to citizens and except where agencies have authorized by law such powers. As Larry points out MOST state laws are not under federal authority. However, many state laws... drug, transportation , energy, land use, education have written into them some subservience to fed authority.

 

[bbbass]

As such EO's are not laws applicable to citizens and except where agencies have authorized by law such powers.

You mean where agencies are authorized by Congress to have such powers? (Which they all are.) For example, I was appointed to an Oregon State committee for Home Inspectors. We did not create laws but were authorized by a law passed by the Legislature to promulgate "regulations" which under the Oregon Board of Contractors authority have the effect of law. I think we are saying the same thing. Yes?

 

[Ralgha]

I think the words "shall not be infringed" in the Constitution preempt any state laws infringing guns. Prez probably can't EO that though, it has to be up to the Supremes to say that.

 

[JRuby]

I think the words "shall not be infringed" in the Constitution preempt any state laws infringing guns. Prez probably can't EO that though, it has to be up to the Supremes to say that.

Though I agree with the intent of the 2nd amendment it has been proven through many different legal proceedings that the right of gun owners have been infringed. Just try walking into a federal building doing open carry and you are no longer in control of your day some guys in cheap suits are.

 

[ikemay]

Potus cannot overturn state laws, but can overturn/nullify executive actions by themselves.

 

[csa_ap_hill]

he could as Clinton brought it in a bill so the house and senate could vote on it. Just like Trump and or Cruz promises to undo Obama care he can do the same thing.
He could also issue a EO which effects the agency's at the Federal level as in ATF etc... and nullify some or all of their power.
Neither Cruz, or Trump will though, even though GOA endorses Cruz. Rand Paul might have been the best bet, if people wouldn't' have been so blind they could of voted him to the top, and then we'd have one Candidate who might have been the one to have repealed several years of Gon Control.

 

[PaulB47]

No R president would do such a thing, even if he could do it.

 

[Diamondback]

The other card in the Presidential deck is to order strict enforcement, then pardon the unjustly convicted with a statement about "I am required to enforce the laws to the best of my ability, even those I believe to be wrong. However, I am also allowed to pardon those who I believe have paid their debt to society or been convicted of violating unjust laws--and that's what I'm doing here."