“In the United States, we do not have a king, but we do have a Constitution. We also have the Second Amendment, and I will fight tooth and nail to protect it.” With that pronouncement, Kentucky senator and presidential candidate Rand Paul announced that he’s introducing legislation that would, according to thehill.com, “decree any executive action on gun control that either infringes upon congressional authority or potentially violates the Second Amendment as ‘advisory only’ until legislation that supported the action is passed by Congress.” There’s only one problem with that . . .
Well, there are at least three. First, Congress has spent the last quarter century or so gradually ceding much of its power to the executive branch. That’s why the current POTUS thinks that all he really needs to get things done is a pen and a phone. Why wouldn’t he? When Obama’s issued executive orders that blatantly encroach on the legislative branch’s powers (revising ObamaCare’s provisions multiple times, as one example), they’ve done little or nothing about it.
Second, whatever merits this bill may have, should it pass both houses of Congress, it will surely be vetoed by the President. Even if Congress manages to muster the votes necessary to over-ride the veto, Obama will no doubt issue the orders anyway. See the first problem, above.
Third, the Congress can stamp its ineffectual little feet and hold its useless breath all it wants, but that wouldn’t stop the President from, for instance, enacting his own “assault weapons” ban by ordering the FBI to refuse to authorize background checks on all purchases of AR-15s and AK-47s. If, by some Lazarus-like miracle, the solons breathe new life into their testicular regions and stiffen their linguini-like spines enough to sue him over such an order, the case would no doubt drag out in the courts well past the time Obama finally vacates the office just over a year from now. What President Clinton would then do would be anyone’s guess.
“decree any executive action on gun control that either infringes upon congressional authority or potentially violates any Bill Of Rights Amendment as ‘advisory only’.”
While I agree with most of this…. it better than nothing.
When Obama’s issued executive orders that blatantly encroach on the legislative branch’s powers, they’ve done little or nothing about it.
As stated earlier in the text, this crap started long before Obonzo and Congress has done little about it.
We don’t need a legislative branch. Let Osama disband the legislature and send them home, declare himself Emperor for Life!. Give it a month. Then, going to DC will only require finding two, three people, instead of 545. Win win!
If everyone is so concerned, then why is there NOT a march on DC? Stop whining and go straight to the source. We do have that right ya know.
I don’t understand why private citizens or companies have to follow a Presidential executive orders. They are not laws. We are only bound by laws. I think Presidential EOs only apply to employees of the Federal government and the Military.
Somebody explain to me otherwise.
A huge amount of “law” is actually made by the Executive branch, and by design. When Congress passes legislation, what it is doing in the majority of cases is specifying the framework in which the law will act. The specifics, the nitty-gritty, is left to the executive agencies which will implement the law, and they develop the regulations define day-to-day enforcement of the law. So the NFA says the SBRs need a tax stamp and pistols don’t; the ATF says what’s an SBR and what’s a pistol. Congress said what the penalties are for violating the NFA; the ATF are the ones that will impose it. And so on and so forth.
Executive orders direct executive branch agencies on how they will interpret legislation. That’s how they affect private citizens and companies.
All alphabet agency regulations and directives become null and void if not voted on and approved by majority of Congress within 180 days.
Good luck with that. It would have to be through the states, because that would never get traction in Congress. Congress doesn’t want to specify or vote on every last rule or reg that exists or will ever exist. That would be a huge amount of work, they’d never spend their time doing anything else, and it wouldn’t actually add that much transparency to the process.
The current system is actually pretty okay, for the most part. It’s not possible to think of everything in legislation, so it’s not really a good idea to try, because you’d just create a mess. Instead you have the general framework, with the details worked out and maintained by the people working in enforcement day to day. The checks are that those people are accountable to the legislature, rule making is a public process with public input, and the courts are also available as a recourse.
“…they’d never spend their time doing anything else…so it’s not really a good idea to try, because you’d just create a mess…”
It seems if something is too big to manage, then its too big.
“The checks are that those people are accountable to the legislature…”
Not really seeing that. I haven’t seen Congress keeping any higher ups in an alphabet agency accountable for anything lately.
Right. But that’s EO’s that have that legislative framework in which to work.
What of defining a new item or behavior illegal out of whole cloth, in the absence of actual legislation?
I don’t know how this works at the federal level, but South Carolina (for example) has a law on the books that states that it is a felony if one is placed under “arrest” and the arresting officer cannot cite the actual Statute that has defined that behavior as criminal (with criminal penalties, etc).
So, let’s the Governor wanted EO something into existence that did NOT have such legislative underpinning and SLED and all the other LEO’s went hog wild with it.
The problem would arise when a citizen asked, at the time of the handcuffs getting put on, “So, what Statute am I being arrested under?”
Without a legal statute as answer to that question, the cop himself is committing a statutory felony (not kidnapping).
EO’s are directives to the Executive employees, but they can NOT be considered binding legislation on their own. At least not Constitutionally.
And, if the Court deemed it “ok” for this to happen (as I’m sure it already has in some cases), well, the Executive is one EO away from rendering the Judiciary moot as well.
No; this EO business has “mess” written all over it. That Presidents (including Obama) have gotten away with it for a while, what is happening now far exceeds what has been done in the past and WILL cause problems. Eventually.
The idea, I believe, would be that Obama would order the ATF, FBI, and other such executive entities to interpret existing legislation in new and exciting ways to turn the screws on gun owners. It is total BS, because if this were an approach with a solid legal and Constitutional foundation they would have done it ages ago.
But executive orders in general are basically the equivalent of a company-wide memo from a CEO, informing staff that a policy is to be implemented with these goals in mind, within these parameters, etc., etc.
My guess is that the president is looking at how far he can push this without going too far, because it he does cross that line, there is nothing on God’s earth that will protect him.
It doesn’t really matter why; the precedent has been set 150+ years. Among other things, Lincoln freed the slaves with an EO.
Actually, no he didn’t. he declared that slaves in states that were at war with the US were free–but those states didn’t care what he said. And slaves in states that were not at war with the US at the time (Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and parts of Louisiana) were not affected, they remained slaves. Like this one is likely to be, that “EO” was pure propaganda to keep the British from recognizing/aiding the CSA.
“President from, for instance, enacting his own “assault weapons” ban by ordering the FBI to refuse to authorize background checks on all purchases of AR-15s and AK-47s.”
Would you guys knock it off already, Dan??
This is the second time you and RF have floated this idea trying to incite false panic. the background check itself only identifies if it’s a pistol or long gun being purchased. Even if Obama orders the FBI not to run background checks on fun guns, the FBI would need to develop customized background checks that clearly violate existing law.
Well not only that, but if the FBI doesn’t come back in three days, can’t the sale go through anyway? So all an order to the FBI to stop performing background checks would do is by default create a national 3 day waiting period, and of course either prove the background check system to be worthless (when criminals don’t run to buy guns) or completely sufficient on it’s own when criminals do rush to buy guns (which will then be Obama’s fault).
…Not if the EO closes that “loophole”
The EO can’t close that “loophole”–it is already enshrined by statute. And we wouldn’t have to wait for Congress to sue over an invalid EO; the first person who had his AR sale scotched would have standing to sue.
It’s cute that you believe Obumer cares about such trivia.
I don’t care whether he cares or not– see “sue” above. Besides which–if he didn’t care, he would have done it by now instead of kicking the can down the road.
Hold on, let me adjust my foil hat. OK, then he issues denials on all long gun purchases. And while not every state uses NICS, that would stop A LOT of gun sales.
It would stop all long guns sales for as long as it would take to get the necessary injunctions against enforcement. And that would take five minutes.
At the stroke of his pen, POTUS would align the interests of the NRA, NSSF, Ducks Unlimited, every hunting rights group, EVERYBODY. Even the Fudds would go insane. It would be the greatest thing ever to happen for gun rights in the history of the world forever.
Bingo. I would love to see him something the blatantly stupid. This would completely remove all nuance from the debate, and the real “silent majority” would finally get called in.
BS – Dan Z. Even Obama knows that an EO effectively prohibiting the sale of all longuns wouldn’t work. An attempt like that would invite the states to cast off the whole background check system. There are already states that don’t require it for CCW holders. Every Republican controlled state would join them overnight. The membership of the NRA would probably triple virtually overnight. Heck, even Elmer Fudd would become a flaming 2nd Amendment absolutist after something like that. Plus everybody wold just buy AR and AK pistols and sbr them.
NICS is some kind of option, somewhere?
Because stating possibilities is “inciting false panic”?
OMG THERE MIGHT BE A TIGER IN YOUR BATHROOM!!!1! Feel free to buy my new, patent-pending anti-tiger balm- for all your bathroom tiger needs.
“Possible”? Yes. Stupidly unrealistic? Also yes.
Now that you have sufficiently frightened me, how much is the anti tiger balm and where can I buy it while I am waiting to get turned down by BHO to purchase an AK to shoot said tiger? And how the hell did it get in my bathroom?
Hey man, there’s no telling how probably it is or isn’t in my particular situation. Maybe I have a tendency to get black-out drunk with my friends and steal Mike Tyson’s tiger using a borrowed cop car, which we then lock in the bathroom because it’s the only locking door inside my insane hotel suite.
If those possibilities are ridiculously improbable, then yes.
And that would require only a small change in Form 4473. Until and unless the American people rise up and DEMAND that our Constitution be followed, it will be law in name only. By allowing our fake Marxist “president” to arbitrarily change the law , we have emboldened him and proven that he can do whatever he wants unless we stop him, NO MATTER WHAT IT TAKES.
Wouldn’t a ban on ar15s enacted by the nics check just impact states that use nics, and force ask others states to go to buying lowers?
By federal law, every Federal Firearms License holder is required to follow NICS checks every single time that they sell a firearm. If they refuse to do so, the BATFE can and will step in and take everything that they own and put each and every one of them in jail.
Which is why I show my CCW license, fill out the 4473, pay the man and walk out of the store with a new firearm with no call or computer inquiry ever being made to NICS?
The CHL *IS* a NICS check! You don’t have to wait for it because you carry it on a card with you. Last gun I bought, I even noticed that my CHL and my driver’s license (with numbers recorded for both) are both required, after I have filled out a 4473. If someone imagines a place where you wave your CHL and walk out without any records or “oversight”, you are dreaming.
Hey, that’s what I have understood here for 20 years, where does all this “if you use NICS” stuff come from?
If the president issues an executive order that contradicts bills already enacted by the legislature, enacting another bill telling him to stop doing so is rather pointless. At that point it’s a matter of proper constitutional separation of powers that is for the courts to resolve.
Actually at that point impeachment would be the proper course of action by Congress
Yeah if he actually tried to stop all background checks on long guns there would be a strong case for impeachment.
It would be an even stronger case for just throwing the bum out (as per the Declaration of Independance). Anyways, he would simply laugh at an impeachment attempt and simply continue with his tyrannical activities.
Actually, the correct action would be for patriots to capture the President and try him for Treason.
You are exactly correct. As someone mentioned in the previous post about this issue:
Such an action is THE reason for the 2nd Amendment.
Can’t you guess that it would be a “secret”? And if discovered, it would be impossible to find out where the order came from.
You’ve got it–it’s a pointless exercise in grandstsanding IMO.
Why king O should just make an EO that makes crime illegal-er. Then there’d just be no more crime!
Then he can leave us moral, law abiding citizens and our toys alone.
A great token move, at least. His heart is in the right place.
enact no bills whatsoever that infringe on constitutional rights (sorry Rand). except for well… a bill that prohibits any bills or executive actions that are contrary to it. it should carry mandatory 5 years in supermax prison for anyone who tries to usurp inalienable rights
us “useless eaters” suffer mandatory minimums (for far less) so its only fair that the elites do too right?
I watched Sparklefarts when he was a State senator in Illinois and then the US Senator from Illinois and I was absolutely amazed (and appalled) that this arrogant pissant was overwhelmingly elected not once, but twice.
I am not too sure that Robert and Dan are far off from the mark because Sparklefarts is becoming desperate for just one thing, any thing, to become his legacy. Every single thing he has accomplished has turned out to be a either a dismal failure or became an actual threat to the security of the country. (Al-Qaeda in Iraq morphed into ISIS as soon as Sparklefarts pulled all the US troops out and left an inept corrupt government to totally fail in governing their country)
I have total faith in Sparklefarts to really throw some hand grenades during his last year in office. He is being ridiculed not only by the right but now from the left.
Don’t piss off a water buffalo and for sure don’t piss off an arrogant egotistic tyrant wannabe.
It remains to be seen what he tries to pull off but i suspect it’s going to be a humdinger. I will go back to buying precious metals like Pb and Zn/Cu
I think a certain burning Bush and an illegal war (false pretenses) and economy is deep trouble are responsible for getting SparkleFarts elected the first time – that’s an easy one.
It’s a little harder to figure out how he managed to get elected a second time, but I reckon the bulk of the explanation lies in two words: Mitt Romney.
Bush signed the binding SOFA (Status Of Forces Agreement) with Iraq to pull our combat troops out by a certain date. The press conference when it was signed is when the Iraqi report threw his shoe at bush.
Right. And his hopey-changey successor changed absolutely nothing, made big noise about how he was doing big shit and stuck to the original agreement like glue. Bush made the original agreement because Iraq allowed nothing else, the corrupt and incompetent regime we put in place proceeded to throw us out, we should *NEVER* support another regime there, with money, guns, blood, or even food. Let the little children die.
It appears Obama’s already got all the ‘legacy’ he’s ever gonna’ have. He can only dump more marginal useless crap on our nation from how to November.
This about sums it up:
“and for sure don’t piss off an arrogant egotistic tyrant wannabe.”
…. you forgot dangerous, narcissistic, lying sociopath. Thanks! B^)
We are rapidly approaching the point where the original founders intent of 2A may be put to practice. Much like the Bundy standoff in Nevada, for example.
If only we were that lucky…..
Sounds like Dan has given up and tossed in the towel.
He’s being realistic; Boner of the Republicrats declared way back two years ago there was no way his party would ever confront Obama about anything, regardless. They see a government shutdown or impeachment proceeding as being so threatening to their authority (because either would lead to unprecedented Tea Party/conservative gains –as was seen after Cruz ‘blew up the world’ and led the shutdown in 2013, paving the way for historic conservative gains in the midterms) they would literally give the Democrats a blank check & throw the presidential election before performing their sworn duties.
I don’t care what laws this pissant fascist invents. I imagine millions of others are of the same opinion.
I Will Not Comply
Nor will I, I don’t acknowledge this clown as my president and I don’t follow orders from him,I make a habit of obeying laws if they are constitutional but if they are not,I will find away around them,as far as orders are concerned,he is not my commander in chief because I’m not in the military.I will break unconstitutional laws at every turn but I’m not aware of any constitutional orders that the founding fathers put in the constitution.The government we have now is nothing more than a bunch of nazi thugs that will be out of office not soon enough.
Well, the answer to Obama ordering no background check passage on “assault weapons” would be to repeal the background check laws.
I’ve been to a lot of gun stores and gun shows and I haven’t as of yet seen the elusive “assault weapon”.I have never seen a high capacity magazine either,all I’ve seen is normal capacity magazines.
Incite panic buying? I went by my local gun store in Cook co,IL today. Jammed to the rafters on a Monday afternoon(used to be closed Monday & Sunday). Bare shelves-even with ridiculous prices,Cook $25 gun tax and recently enacted bullet tax. Oh and $20/hour new gun range(higher than anyone). So tell me Dan and RF are fanning any flames. Bury Soetoro hates the hildebeast and will do anything in his warped imagination to torpedo the clintons(yeah slick willy). Stay tuned-and keep your powder dry…
Must be an Illinois thing. Gun stores around here seem to be doing brisk pre-holiday business, but there’s still lots of product on the shelves, including .22LR ammo and AR-pattern rifles.
All these first time gun buyers are having to pay premium prices because of their own fence sitting,whether they bought them in time is the biggest issue. There’s just going to be that many more that the government is going to have to confiscate/steal. At least they didn’t have to buy them on the black market.
How about a ‘decree’ you Republicans will bring articles of impeachment down on his ass if he tries to implement so-called ‘unconstitutional edicts’ –and congress, too, if they pass legislation for the same? It’s so easy and obvious, we’ve had this decree for going on 250 years, now.
Impeachment is absolutely useless unless the Senate convicts, which would require 13 Democrats to break with their party. Ain’t gonna happen.
Absolutely. You’d be hard pressed to find even 2-3 law abiding Democrat Senators. Of course, these days, many GOP senators would protect a Republican President in the same way. Granted, you will find many more law-abiding GOP than Dems, but that’s faint praise indeed.
Far more that what Trump the Democrat and the rest of the RINOs plan to do other than talk tough. Paul and Cruz are the only real conservatives running here people. Trump will take your guns faster than Hitlery.
Cruz isn’t a conservative. He is a lying NeoCon shill.
Unfortunately, I agree with the article. Congress should have challenged Obama’s constitutionally questionable actions long ago. Makes it harder now. I for one thinks he deserves to be impeached, tried and removed from office for ‘high crimes and misdemeanors”, many of them. After all, impeachable offenses are whatever the Congress says they are.
1) change in definition of an 80% lower to more like. 50% lower.
2) direct the FBI to make nICS available to public. Legally binding or more likely not.
3) make uppers and other gun parts the same status as a firearm (ie has to go through nICS)
Probably all three.
You are welcome
A legally elected president declared himself a virtual dictator, and no one raised a hand to stop him. That power will be passed on to the next dictator to rule by personal agenda, the longer it is allowed, the stronger it will become. The Constitution will become just another relic in a museum, if it is allowed at all. The ‘opposition’ barks, but does not bite. We have no one to blame but ourselves. We, The People voted for these criminals. It did not start yesterday. The fewer people that vote, the more freedom we will lose.
That all happened back in 1861 with the swearing in of the tyrant Lincoln. Booth should be regarded as a national hero.
“What president Clinton would do then….”? I think you better do your homework. There is NO garuntee that Hilary will win and she is NOT beating Bernie Sanders, presently. We the people are awake, and fighting our revolution. #feelthebern #berniesanders
When the US Constitution was launched, The UK had a constitutional monarch with a moderate amount of executive power. The US constitution and its subsequent evolution has given the USA an elected king with significant executive power. In the UK we now have a constitutional monarch as head of state, with no executive power whatsoever. I believe the USA is jealous of our improved democracy. In addition we have in the USA a nation obsessed with its right to bear arms with which to fight off the British. Conveniently ignoring the fact that the US army is ten times the size of the British army, the US citizens remain paranoid that our (admittedly excellent) armed forces might overwhelm the US army, navy and air force and invade. At which point the citizen militia of the US (well-regulated surely as per the 2nd amendment) would repel us. Does this seem to anyone else to be a bit of a dream world?