User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/26/2005 11:19:15 AM EDT
[#1]
It would have to be in line with legislation.
The firearm bans were based on the 'sporting purpose' bs that was passed by Kongress. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2005 11:23:08 AM EDT
[#2]
Im not sure if there have been any others, but you can blame the 89 import ban on an executive order. So based on that I would guess they could do whatever they wanted. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2005 11:27:39 AM EDT
[#3]
No legal order outweighs the voice of the people, if we marched in the thousands on Washington with picket signs and illegally manufactured full automatic weapons (in a slung, unviolent manner of course),v and set up camp on the white house lawn, there is nothing they could do about it but repeal the NFA and call it a day.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2005 11:38:09 AM EDT
[#4]
Works for me!!..............OK........so far I've got you and me on the sign-up list..........next? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2005 11:39:17 AM EDT
[#5]
Ask the bonus marchers about what the federal government can do to people camped out on the White House lawn. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2005 11:45:34 AM EDT
[#6]
Youd have to let me borrow one of those illegally manufactured machine guns, all I got is measely semi autos at my house. 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2005 11:46:40 AM EDT
[#7]
If youre not ready to put the feds in check then you shouldnt be there in the first place. They answer to us, not the otherway around. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2005 11:48:05 AM EDT
[#8]
Keep saying that to yourself as you are cuffed and stuffed on the wagon. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2005 11:52:01 AM EDT
[#9]
So say Congress commissioned some kind of hypothetical AP ammo study that determined most rifle rounds should fall under AP since they easily penetrate body armor. Could that be the basis for an Executive Order against ammunition in some way ? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2005 11:52:11 AM EDT
[#10]
Well, Clinton banned a handful of semi-auto shotguns by declaring them Destructive Devices. All an Anti POTUS would have to do is label AW's as DD and the public would swallow it hook, line, and sinker.
Dave |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2005 12:11:26 PM EDT
[#11]
Does Washington DC have 10,000 police cruisers and a place to hold that many people? What about 20k, or 30k? The only reason it wouldnt work is because people like you dont have the heart to stand up for what you say you believe in. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2005 12:15:16 PM EDT
[#12]
Tough talk coming from someone who lives on an island. 
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2005 12:28:49 PM EDT
[#13]
I read 10,000 men armed with machine guns as an insurrection, which would be quashed by the military rather than the police. You don't need 10,000 jail cells when 10,000 body bags will do. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2005 12:30:58 PM EDT
[#14]
Wouldnt be hard to make it look bad with the meida spinning it for them. Let someone start a "peace march" where people loot and burn things they wont do a damn thing though |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2005 12:41:05 PM EDT
[#15]
I have no problem with protesting. It's the possession of an unregistered machinegun and spending time in the gray bar hotel I have problems with. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2005 12:44:26 PM EDT
[#16]
The limits on executive orders are really not very well defined.
In practice, they're valid as long as they do not directly contradict existing federal laws. Sometimes they're treated as valid even if they do. If I were the President, one of my first executive orders would be to cancel ALL other existing executive orders still in force, just as a matter of principle. If certain people or groups made strong protests about some of those orders being cancelled, those orders would be carefully scrutinized against the touchstone question, "Does this EO actually enhance the lives of the people, or not? Would cancelling this one actually do us more harm than just letting it stand?" My next EO would be to round up every prominent anti-gunner and have the Justice Department charge them with the capital crime of TREASON, by way of conspiring to deny the people the rights guaranted to them under the Constitution, and also for conspiring to overthrow this government by means of attempting to undermine the authority of the Constitution and Bill of Rights by attacking the clear and obvious meaning of the Second Amendment. My follow-up EOs would be to order expedited trials for these people, and then to execute them without any delay following the court's expected verdict of GUILTY. CJ |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2005 12:50:03 PM EDT
[#17]
The worst thing that could be enacted by EO (and I mean worse, as in 'total psycho-worse-than-Hillary-gets-elected') would be a total ban on imported firearms & all shotguns over .50" bore becoming NFA... Realistically, however, there isn't much that anyone will do with EO powers & firearms... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2005 12:51:02 PM EDT
[#18]
The government can pretty much do whatever the hell it goddamn well pleases. The President can also do pretty much anything with an EO (remember Paul Begala referring to klinton's EOs as "stroke of the pen, land of the law...kinda cool."?) - he wasn't far off.
All this bullshit about people marching and protesting is laughable. Don't fool yourselves into thinking the government would be scared. This isn't the early 1800s were the government and the people were on pretty much equal footing when it came to weapons and technology. Try to march or protest in Washington with guns slung on your shoulder and you'll see every alphabet agency surround you from the land, sea, and air, and then the military will move in and crush any resistance. Remember the Bonus Army? They weren't even armed. Of course, this is assuming one could even organize 10K gun owners in the first place. Most are full of shit and would rather someone else be the one laying dead having his gun "pried from his cold dead hand". |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2005 1:19:16 PM EDT
[#19]
Sheeit, they'd just dump a JDAM or MOAB on the crowd and call it a day. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2005 1:27:00 PM EDT
[#20]
I plan on running for President one day just so I can use executive orders to undo all the unConstitutional gun laws out there.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2005 1:36:08 PM EDT
[#21]
You got my vote cause youre from Texas.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2005 1:37:09 PM EDT
[#22]
Stationed on an island. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2005 4:23:30 PM EDT
[#23]
Keep saying that as the Federal troops open fire on you and your group of protesters. That's what they did with the bonus marchers. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2005 4:29:53 PM EDT
[#24]
EO's are fucking scary. Scarier than that? JFK outlawed the Federal Reserve through EO. He was killed, we still have the Federal Reserve.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2005 4:35:00 PM EDT
[#25]
LANCEMAN wrote:
What limits are there on an Executive Order ? How bad could Executive Orders be for firearms ? If a gun control proponent got in the Executive position of our government and had that tool at their disposal what limits do they have to operate under in regard to how far they could go with their agenda ? Vote for Hilliary  in 2008 and you will know!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2005 4:57:06 PM EDT
[#26]
I'm still trying to figure out how EOs are legal at all
sounds way too much like a king to me |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2005 5:05:09 PM EDT
[#27]
You'll have to read the Constitution and maybe some other documents to fully understand EOs. And when you get to full enlightenment on them, please tell us what you've discovered. It's a bit vague, actually.
But, in essence, the President can issue orders on anything not already specifically covered by an existing law or by the Constitution or Bill of Rights. At least that's a practical interpretation. CJ |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2005 5:14:36 PM EDT
[#28]
You first Aloha Boy. WTF are you smoking out there ? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2005 5:16:40 PM EDT
[#29]
Kharn |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2005 5:46:17 PM EDT
[#30]
An EO cannot create new law.
An EO directs a federal agency on the application or interpretation of existing law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2005 5:54:31 PM EDT
[#31]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order#U.S._Presidential_usage
Presidents of the United States have issued executive orders since 1789. There is no United States Constitution provision or statute that explicitly permits this, aside from the vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution and the statement "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" in Article II, Section 3. Executive orders do not have legal force by themselves. Most are simply orders issued by the President to United States executive officers to help direct their operation, the result of failing to comply being removal from office. Some orders do have the force of law when made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress due to those acts giving the President discretionary powers. Criticism Critics accuse presidents of abusing executive orders, of using them to make laws without Congressional approval, and of moving existing laws away from their original mandates. Large policy changes with wide-ranging effects have been effected through executive order, including the integration of the Armed Forces under Harry Truman and the desegregation of public schools under Dwight D. Eisenhower. One extreme example of an executive order is Executive Order 9066, where President Roosevelt delegated military authority to remove all people (used to target specifically Japanese-Americans and German-Americans) in a military zone. The authority delegated to John DeWitt subsequently paved the way for all Japanese-Americans on the West coast to be sent to internment camps for the duration of World War II. 11,000 German-Americans were also sent to internment camps under executive order. Wars have been fought upon executive order, including Bill Clinton's 1999 Kosovo War. However, all such wars have had authorizing resolutions from Congress. The extent to which the president may exercise military power independently of Congress and the scope of the War Powers Resolution remain unresolved constitutional issues in the United States. Critics fear that the president could make himself a de facto dictator by side-stepping the other branches of government and making autocratic laws. The presidents, however, cite executive order as often the only way to clarify laws passed through the Congress, laws which often require vague wording in order to please all political parties involved in their creation. [edit] Legal conflicts To date, the courts have overturned only two executive orders: the aforementioned Truman order and a 1996 order issued by President Bill Clinton that attempted to prevent the U.S. government from contracting with organizations that had strikebreakers on the payroll. Likewise, the Congress may also overturn an executive order by passing legislation in conflict with it or by refusing to approve funding to enforce it. Because the president retains the power to veto such a decision, however, the Congress usually needs a two-thirds majority to override a veto and truly end an executive order. [edit] Criticism Critics accuse presidents of abusing executive orders, of using them to make laws without Congressional approval, and of moving existing laws away from their original mandates. Large policy changes with wide-ranging effects have been effected through executive order, including the integration of the Armed Forces under Harry Truman and the desegregation of public schools under Dwight D. Eisenhower. One extreme example of an executive order is Executive Order 9066, where President Roosevelt delegated military authority to remove all people (used to target specifically Japanese-Americans and German-Americans) in a military zone. The authority delegated to John DeWitt subsequently paved the way for all Japanese-Americans on the West coast to be sent to internment camps for the duration of World War II. 11,000 German-Americans were also sent to internment camps under executive order. Wars have been fought upon executive order, including Bill Clinton's 1999 Kosovo War. However, all such wars have had authorizing resolutions from Congress. The extent to which the president may exercise military power independently of Congress and the scope of the War Powers Resolution remain unresolved constitutional issues in the United States. Critics fear that the president could make himself a de facto dictator by side-stepping the other branches of government and making autocratic laws. The presidents, however, cite executive order as often the only way to clarify laws passed through the Congress, laws which often require vague wording in order to please all political parties involved in their creation. [edit] Legal conflicts To date, the courts have overturned only two executive orders: the aforementioned Truman order and a 1996 order issued by President Bill Clinton that attempted to prevent the U.S. government from contracting with organizations that had strikebreakers on the payroll. Likewise, the Congress may also overturn an executive order by passing legislation in conflict with it or by refusing to approve funding to enforce it. Because the president retains the power to veto such a decision, however, the Congress usually needs a two-thirds majority to override a veto and truly end an executive order. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2005 7:04:45 PM EDT
[#32]
Good post B_T but check your edit...you duped a little.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2005 7:29:23 PM EDT
[#33]
Incorrect. Executive Orders are ALL based on Public Law and in fact, reference which section of the US Code gives the Executive authority to do what the EO describes. EOs give direction and clarification on the implementation of law to agencies under the Executive Branch of the government. EOs are not law per se, and most definitely CANNOT be written to cover something not already covered by existing law. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2005 7:30:16 PM EDT
[#34]
Bingo. It really is that simple, despite the protestations of tin-foil hat theorists. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2005 7:37:28 PM EDT
[#35]
For anyone to believe that the military would attack American citizens on American soil, youd have to be smoking crack. The bonus marchers incident happened during WWI, do you honestly think any federal official would make the same mistake 100 years later with the political and social atmosphere we have today? Being an active duty NCO I can attest I wouldnt follow any such order to attack any American citizen protesting in a peaceful manner, regardless of what kind of firearm they have slung over their shoulder. If I began shooting at them I would expect them (10,000 people) to return fire and possibly shoot me dead. What the fuck do we look like, China? There would be no shooting whatsoever, it would end as peacefully as it started. If anybody here does not believe taht something like that could have a positive effect on our country, then you deserve to lose your firearms rights, because you clearly have no desire to keep them. They wont be prying from your cold dead heands, theyll be taking them as quickly as you hand them over.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2005 7:39:22 PM EDT
[#36]
+1 that was sad day for america and 95% of the countyr has no idea what the bonus march was or the reaction to it 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2005 9:27:30 PM EDT
[#37]
Actually, it happened during the 1930's, and not only were they American citizens, but starving American Veterans of WWI. Also, which politician made the decision to open fire on the Bonus Marchers? None. It was Joint Chief of Staff Douglas MacArthur who made that decision, and the President even ordered him twice not to engage the marchers. Point is, the Federal government would not tolerate an armed protest or insurrection (you should also read about the Whiskey Rebellion, another case of Federal forces firing on American citizens) or how about Kent State, know anything about that one? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2005 11:28:03 PM EDT
[#38]
And a lot are just used for administrative purposes within the Executive Branch. Here’s a list of them going back to FDR. Most are pretty dreary stuff: www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/26/2005 11:42:07 PM EDT
[#39]
The Kent State incident was Ohio National Guard. Not the Feds. Kent State Shootings |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2005 12:17:23 AM EDT
[#40]
Right, but one of his arguments is that soldiers wouldn't accept orders to fire on American citizens, yet George Washington mobilized the militia against the people involved in the Whiskey Rebellion, General Macarthur ordered the action against the bonus marchers, even after being told not to by the President twice, and a National Guard unit opened fire on students. To say it couldn't happen again is at best optimistic or at worst just plain foolish. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2005 6:27:56 PM EDT
[#41]
I wouldn't be involved in activities that could get me shot (even if I'm obeying the law) without being willing and able to shoot back in self-defense.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/27/2005 6:29:37 PM EDT
[#42]
I can't disagree with anything you say here.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2005 8:11:35 AM EDT
[#43]
I wonder about the plan to send US Airborne troops into Alabama during the segregation debate. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2005 8:55:21 AM EDT
[#44]
I agree with this part.
I'm not so sure about this part. How can you really fault people for not wanting to take part in a mass arrest/suicide when 2 sentences before you admit that the full brunt of the military and Federal law enforcement would be prepared to meet them? The idea of getting 10,000 people to march on Washington DC with their guns is stupid. First off, anyone who tried to organize such a thing would be arrested LOOOOng before it ever got off the ground and second anyone who did show up would find the Army waiting for them with Tanks, grenades and machine guns. It would be over very quickly. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/28/2005 9:14:23 AM EDT
[#45]
10K US gun-owners protesting in DC is every politicians wet dream. they'd have us all in one place to disintegrate in one swoop. they'd have no problem convincing the rest of the "general public" that we were only domestic terrorists, and come election time there'd be 10K less of "us" screaming for our rights. no sir. i'd say the best course of action for the american gun owner is to stay as de-centralized as possible. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
