question about executive orders & assault weapons

[orleans]

the other night i was thinking that so many members in congress are bought by the gun lobby and it's unlikely (imo) that the r's will do anything (but remain silent) on gun legislation.

so what can be done?

then i thought: what about an executive order?

couldn't obama just make an executive order to ban assault weapons?

aside from the question of whether he would or not, i'm wondering if it would be possible--could an executive order be put in place to do such a thing?

[RKP5637]

1. I've been wondering the same. Sadly, it would likely cause such an uproar Trump would

gain more voters.

[PoliticAverse]

2. An executive order could be issued but would it be upheld by the courts? n/t

[HereSince1628]

3. Why an executive order? Why not an order by the CIC to the militia

in order to bring about the well regulation and good order of the militia?

Remember John Yoo?? He demonstrated that the power of the Commander In Chief is much greater and far less fettered than the petty powers of the presidency.

[jmg257]

8. There is no CinC until they are called into federal service.

Congress determines how to organize, arm, and discipline the militias.

[HereSince1628]

31. that's untrue. There is ALWAYS a commande in chief

as we are engaged in a GWOT.

And rules that regulate the militia are not dependent upon the militia being active,rules and regulations can exist outside the duty status of anyone or any many.

The Founders prefaced accessibility of arms on the maintenance of a well regulated militia. Let it be so.

[jmg257]

32. Sure it is...

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States"


And again - Congress determines how to organize, arm, and discipline the militias.

"Congress shall have the power To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"


Good point on the GWOT; but although the National Guard may indeed be in federal service (is it officially?), the rest of the militia is not.

And I think it the rest of the militia is who we would want/need to be under such an CinC order?

[HereSince1628]

33. The rules for the militia can exist outside of there being active militia men.

The ban on restrictions of the right to bear arms is independent of people actually choosing to be armed, or not.

The purpose of not retricting the right to bear arms was to provide for preparations for a well regulated militia, whether it was active or not.

Regulating arms sales to bring about order may seem radical but it's an avenue that hasn't to my knowledge been explored under the argument of John Yoo, who suggested that Constitutional provisions to limit performance of the CIC don't apply as the CIC prosecutes his responsibilities.

I think this would be an interesting test of that.

[jmg257]

34. Yes - agreed. But those rules (should - were mandated to) come from congress.

I begin to see what you mean about the CinC - possibly having more of a say in that though.


Agree completely on purposes of the 2nd. The state militias also had local functions, so it was in both govts' interests to keep them effective - well-armed and well trained. Obvious that original system turned out to be not the best notion, and we the people already agree with creation of the National Guard.

Ill check out Yoo - thanks!

[HereSince1628]

37. Not according to Yoo, the authority of the CIC exceeds the constitution.

Strange argument to be sure, but why not take the Neocons own authoritarian worship and use it to regulate (not ban) arms sales to conform to a standard required by militia regulations?

[jmg257]

38. Ah thanks - now I got ya! Thanks for hanging in there...Cheers! nt

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

4. This idea is actually been floated...

by a few articles I've seen. The last one was today, I think it was at HuffPo, I searched and could not find today's article but a Google search does turn up older ones, some dating back a few years.

Anyway one point that was brought up was the same as offerd above. "What about the courts?"

The answer was a yes to the courts discussing it and some probably overturning the EO but one good comes from that. We would know the judges names. If elected when they go up for reelection they may face difficulty.

Hey the way I see it President Obama is a Harvard constitutional law grad. He should know how to make it work. He just has to take the bully pulpit, explain his position and do it.

[Just reading posts]

5. That's not how executive orders work.

[aikoaiko]

6. Is there an example of an EO declaring an object no longer legal for civilian ownership?

[orleans]

9. i don't know (see link)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order

[Heeeeers Johnny]

13. Executive Order 6102

Closest example I can think of.

Executive Order 6102 is a United States presidential executive order signed on April 5, 1933, by President Franklin D. Roosevelt "forbidding the Hoarding of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates within the continental United States". The effect of the order, in conjunction with the statute under which it was issued, was to criminalize the possession of monetary gold by any individual, partnership, association or corporation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102

[Crepuscular]

7. As long as he's at it

what other constitutionally protected rights would you like the President to void by fiat?

We live in a Democracy, not a kingdom.

[orleans]

10. we live in a republic

OH PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Crepuscular]

12. ...

So you are in favor of giving the President additional powers to void constitutional rights on a whim? How would that have worked if those powers had been given to W or Reagan?

[orleans]

14. where in the constitution does it say i get to own a weapon of mass destruction?

"on a whim?"

how many people need to be massacred before banning a weapon of mass destruction is no longer considered whimsical?

[Crepuscular]

15. ...

"weapon of mass destruction"? Arbitrary name that has no meaning. If you are talking about the right to own a firearm that is in common use, the amendment that you are looking for is the second. I realize that you don't like it, but the fact of the matter is that individual firearms ownership is a constitutional right, as noted by the Supreme Court. Wringing your hands is not going to change that fact, the only means of banning guns is going to be to change the constitution. Good luck, we'll see how that works out for you.

[orleans]

20. ..

"On January 16, 2013, one month after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, President Obama signed 23 executive orders and outlined a series of sweeping proposals regarding gun control.[243] He urged Congress to reintroduce an expired ban on military-style assault weapons, such as those used in several recent mass shootings, impose limits on ammunition magazines to 10 rounds, introduce background checks on all gun sales, pass a ban on possession and sale of armor-piercing bullets, introduce harsher penalties for gun-traffickers, especially unlicensed dealers who buy arms for criminals and approving the appointment of the head of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for the first time since 2006.[244] On January 5, 2016, Obama announced new executive actions extending background check requirements to more gun sellers.[245] In a 2016 editorial in the New York Times, Obama compared the struggle for what he termed "common-sense gun reform" to women's suffrage and other civil rights movements in American history"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

[Crepuscular]

22. and your point is?

those executive orders issued by the President did not include banning any type of firearm or magazine, they were essentially meaningless gestures that will have no bearing on curbing firearms violence. It's not within the scope of the Chief Executive to be able to single-hand idly remove rights that are constitutionally protected. You are either having a hard time understanding that or are simply wishing upon a star that he could.

[orleans]

23. your logic makes the assault weapons sound like cute, little pistols. they are not. n/t

[Crepuscular]

25. Assault weapons

is another arbitrary, meaningless name that has been conjured up by people who are mostly unfamiliar with firearms. I don't tend to label any firearms as being "cute", I'll leave that to those with an agenda. As to functionality, the perp involved in the Orlando event could have easily killed just as many people by using pistols, regardless of whether they were of the "cute", "adorable" or "ugly" variety. But your concern about labels or the names weapons are called is duly noted.

[orleans]

28. how much do you enjoy your firearms?

[Crepuscular]

29. ...

not relevant to the discussion at hand but thanks for changing the subject when you run out substantive contributions.

[jmg257]

11. He can give EOs to federal agencies to guide their behavior, to execute the laws in place.

But to make unpopular legislation? THAT would not go over well at all.

[tritsofme]

16. I find it incredibly troubling that people think this is a reasonable option

The American president is not a dictator, if Congress tells him no, the answer is no, he cannot create new laws on a whim.

The frustration with Congress' inaction is certainly understandable, but the answer isn't to throw out the rule of law, it is to change the law with elections.

[orleans]

19. ,,

"On January 16, 2013, one month after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, President Obama signed 23 executive orders and outlined a series of sweeping proposals regarding gun control.[243] He urged Congress to reintroduce an expired ban on military-style assault weapons, such as those used in several recent mass shootings, impose limits on ammunition magazines to 10 rounds, introduce background checks on all gun sales, pass a ban on possession and sale of armor-piercing bullets, introduce harsher penalties for gun-traffickers, especially unlicensed dealers who buy arms for criminals and approving the appointment of the head of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for the first time since 2006.[244] On January 5, 2016, Obama announced new executive actions extending background check requirements to more gun sellers.[245] In a 2016 editorial in the New York Times, Obama compared the struggle for what he termed "common-sense gun reform" to women's suffrage and other civil rights movements in American history"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

[tritsofme]

21. And what is your point?

Obama took steps where he had authority to act, his scope is very limited without Congress. He can't do what the OP suggests.

[jmg257]

26. "sweeping proposals" and "He urged Congress..."

Unfortunately he is an executive, not the legislative body.

[cleanhippie]

17. These this thing called due process, maybe you've heard of it?

[orleans]

18. ..

"On January 16, 2013, one month after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, President Obama signed 23 executive orders and outlined a series of sweeping proposals regarding gun control.[243] He urged Congress to reintroduce an expired ban on military-style assault weapons, such as those used in several recent mass shootings, impose limits on ammunition magazines to 10 rounds, introduce background checks on all gun sales, pass a ban on possession and sale of armor-piercing bullets, introduce harsher penalties for gun-traffickers, especially unlicensed dealers who buy arms for criminals and approving the appointment of the head of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for the first time since 2006.[244] On January 5, 2016, Obama announced new executive actions extending background check requirements to more gun sellers.[245] In a 2016 editorial in the New York Times, Obama compared the struggle for what he termed "common-sense gun reform" to women's suffrage and other civil rights movements in American history"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama

[GulfCoast66]

27. We saw it the first 2 times you posted it

And the article demonstrates the limit of presidential power. He did what he could, but a ban would have to come from congress. He urged them to make his proposed changes. They have not.

[cleanhippie]

30. Nothing you posted violates due process or constitutional rights.

But you knew that already.

[RantinRavin]

24. Would states be able to make them legal again for small quantities

like they are doing with marijuana?

[Lee-Lee]

35. No- basic civics and understanding how government works

An EO can only direct federal agencies to behave in a certain way- within their limits as set by the law.

He can't ban anything by EO, with the possible exception of banning possession by Federal Employees as a condition of employment- maybe. But I bet he wouldn't be able to make it apply to anyone except new hires, especially with any unionized workers.

[NutmegYankee]

36. Executive Orders only direct the Executive Branch agencies in how to enforce an existing law.

If there is no law banning assault weapons, then any such order would be struck by the first court it made contact with.

For instance, Congress passed a law to require background checks at the point of sale. The FBI/ATF were given the responsibility to enforce/carry out this act. Recently, the President issued an executive order to change how the FBI handled some background checks, but that act was within the scope of the existing law which left it to the executive branch agency to determine who was in the business of selling guns.