Executive Order, Worst Case Senario

[Jack_Bauer]

The worst case scenario which is what I think will happen some time in early January 2013. No congressional approval needed and it takes effect right then and is nearly impossible to repeal once signed in.

Obama will sign in an executive order for the following:
1) The ban of further sales of any type of military style firearms
2) The ban of high capacity magazines
?? 3) Ban on further transfers of military style firearms??

[renegade]

Sign away, not worth the paper it is printed on and will be ignored.

[Libertarian_Geek]

EOs aren't law. I want him to try an EO on this.

Executive Orders have gone unrestrained for far too long and this would be a good challenge to sap their illegal power.

[bakerjw]

I am sure that he won't do anything as a knee jerk response. They are too cautious and calculating. They will heighten the rhetoric much like the "Fair share" comments and then watch the polls. If the polls show a favorable tracking, then they might do something. But it won't be immediate.

That is why we need to keep asking the following question. "Why are all of these shooters on SSRI's or other anti depressant medication?" The medications are a big reason for them going off of their rocker.

[ranb]

The worst case scenario which is what I think will happen some time in early January 2013. No congressional approval needed and it takes effect right then and is nearly impossible to repeal once signed in.

Obama will sign in an executive order for the following:
1) The ban of further sales of any type of military style firearms
2) The ban of high capacity magazines
?? 3) Ban on further transfers of military style firearms??

I don't think the president can make new law with an executive order, it is part of the checks and balances of the constitution. He can use an EO to enforce an existing law. Which law do you think he can write an EO on to do what you suggest he will do? The CGA of 1968 and the NFA of 1934 do not ban any of the above.

I was watching the news the day the school shooting went down. There was a Congressman and a Brady Campaign member being interviewed. They blamed the NRA for failure to pass any gun control laws that might have prevented the shooting. It is obvious to me that they are cowards for pointing the finger at the NRA instead of Congress. This tells me that they also lack the courage to pass any meaningfull gun control legislation.

The AWB that Fienstein is threatening to introduce might make it to the floor, but it will not pass. We of course need to be very vocal about our rights in letters to our Senators and Reps to ensure it does not pass.

Ranb

[Bendersquint]

The government is designed to have checks and balances even for Executive Orders, to prevent a President from becoming a Dictator.

This falls in that scenario.

[MV10]

I was watching the news the day the school shooting went down. There was a Congressman and a Brady Campaign member being interviewed. They blamed the NRA for failure to pass any gun control laws that might have prevented the shooting. It is obvious to me that they are cowards for pointing the finger at the NRA instead of Congress. This tells me that they also lack the courage to pass any meaningfull gun control legislation.

They lack support, not courage. They wouldn't hesitate to ram this through if they thought they had the votes.

They blame the NRA because they know this cold war is mostly a propaganda game. They are dug in and chipping away, ever so slowly, at the foundations of those who actively oppose them. Their sole strength is that they have uncritical, unquestioning, unlimited support from virtually every form of media that matters to the general public. This is exactly the same plan that is ever-so-slowly building support for climate change (née global warming). They're playing the long game. They'll exploit this to their advantage, but I doubt they expect any big moves when it's all said and done. It's just fuel for the fire.

[doubloon]

...
I don't think the president can make new law with an executive order,
...
Ranb

1933 Gold Confiscation ... fast forward 2012 ammo/firearm/toilet confiscation

I could be wrong but I believe once Executive Orders are decreed they carry the force of law until Congress creates a law to counter them or they are struck down by SCOTUS ... assuming the ass hat that ordered it in the first place doesn't amend it himself.

[Libertarian_Geek]

...
I don't think the president can make new law with an executive order,
...
Ranb

1933 Gold Confiscation ... fast forward 2012 ammo/firearm/toilet confiscation

I could be wrong but I believe once Executive Orders are decreed they carry the force of law until Congress creates a law to counter them or they are struck down by SCOTUS ... assuming the ass hat that ordered it in the first place doesn't amend it himself.

It's not the force of law, it's the law of force. Such a hypothetical EO would only carry the force given to it by its "believers". With enough followers who didn't know any better, one could equally enforce a song's lyrics causing everyone to wave their hands in the air as if they didn't care. But it would not carry the force of law because it would contradict the highest law of the US (the constitution).

For what it's worth, EO 6012 is another example of the law of force opposing the force of law (and winning). Just don't get me started on Lincoln's unconstitutional EOs.

[silent joe]

Under EO Obama could stop the importation of firearms and ammo.Any other EO could and would be challeged in court.

[ranb]

1933 Gold Confiscation ... fast forward 2012 ammo/firearm/toilet confiscation

I could be wrong but I believe once Executive Orders are decreed they carry the force of law until Congress creates a law to counter them or they are struck down by SCOTUS ... assuming the ass hat that ordered it in the first place doesn't amend it himself.

An EO does carry the force of law, but they do not appear out of thin air. Are you speaking of executive order 6102? It was used to enforce the Trading with the Enemy Act; although in a way that might not have been intended by Congress.

So tell us again how any president is going to make new law with an EO?

Ranb

[L1A1Rocker]

I think guns will be reclassified as destructive devices and added the NFA registry. Just like what was done with the "street sweeper".

[doubloon]

I don't know the EO numbers.

I'm not saying it's a "new law" just that it carries the force of law and can cause irreparable damage to a way of life if blindly followed.

I think they also rounded up American citizens, Japanese citizens?, based on some similar order "for the good of the country". There's a couple more, maybe a few more?, maybe a bunch more? EOs that were basically used against American citizens, against freedom for an agenda.

State of war, state of emergency, domestic terrorists, they'll wrap whatever language around it they need "for the good of the country" ... "for the chilin"

I'm just saying I see these ass hats trying something, maybe an EO maybe not, not sure what, whatever means they have and they don't care whether it sticks or not as long as it is disruptive and destructive to the founding values of the U.S.. I honestly believe they're trying to rip the country apart so they can try to rebuild it they way they want ... another central government oppressed socialist state.

[ranb]

I think guns will be reclassified as destructive devices and added the NFA registry. Just like what was done with the "street sweeper".

There is a very simple explanation of why that happened.

(4) The term "destructive device" means— (A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—
(i) bomb,
(ii) grenade,
(iii) rocket having a propellant
charge of more than four ounces,
(iv) missile having an explosive
or incendiary charge of more than
one-quarter ounce,
(v) mine, or
(vi) device similar to any of the
devices described in the preceding
clauses;
(B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter;

The AG decided that the Street Sweeper was not suitable for sporting use. Whether or not the AG was right is beside the point. The AG is allowed to make the determination, didn't even need the president to issue an EO. Since everything >1/2 bore without an exemption is already a DD and the statute does not allow the AG or president to just make anything they want a DD, it is up to Congress to decide whether or not to do so.

Ranb

[ranb]

I think they also rounded up American citizens, Japanese citizens?, based on some similar order "for the good of the country". There's a couple more, maybe a few more?, maybe a bunch more? EOs that were basically used against American citizens, against freedom for an agenda.

http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?fla ... transcript

Executive Order No. 9066

The President
Executive Order
Authorizing the Secretary of War to Prescribe Military Areas

Whereas the successful prosecution of the war requires every possible protection against espionage and against sabotage to national-defense material, national-defense premises, and national-defense utilities as defined in Section 4, Act of April 20, 1918, 40 Stat. 533, as amended by the Act of November 30, 1940, 54 Stat. 1220, and the Act of August 21, 1941, 55 Stat. 655 (U.S.C., Title 50, Sec. 104);

As you can see this EO did not materialize out of thin air either, it enforced an existing statute. It also applied to any person that lived in a "military area". It was generally applied only to Japanese persons and was not rescinded until 1976 when Ford did away with it.

The fact is that I do not know of any gun statute that Obama can F--k up enough to screw us out of our guns without Congress lending a helping hand.

Ranb

[YugoRPK]

Nothing he can do other than some meaningless importation restrictions. It would have to be a law passed by Congress and they can't get along . The numbers are too close for either side to risk letting a few votes go by and risk tanking their control of the House or Senate. If the Congress did play ball the worse thing that will come out of this is some worthless "clip" banning. Remember the stupid '94 ban they want to reinstate? What a waste of ink that was. Bans without confiscation and enforcement are pointless.

This gun debate thing does take the heat off raising taxes though which is something they actually have to do or make some actual spending cuts. Its so hard to stop spending money and so easy to hide behind smoke screens.

[doubloon]

... materialize out of thin air ...
Ranb

What is this "thin air" quip you keep throwing around as if it holds any weight? It's like you're saying "I'm rubber, you're glue".

Is it your stance that there is no leverage whatsoever for an EO or any other action by the Fascist left to take some kind of action against firearm ownership or ammunition or firearm "accessories" in this term?

[ranb]

When I say thin air it means that the EO is stand alone like some people seem to claim. An EO is intended to enforce a statute already in the US code. It is not something that the president just makes up to create new law. I'm not trying to be insulting when I say it.

Ranb

[ranb]

I have been discussing this issue on another forum. It was suggested that Obama could possibly use a national security statute to write an executive order to control firearms or ban them. That is an angle I had not thought of before as I thought any EO would reference the CGA of 1968 or the NFA of 1934.. I do not think it would stand up to the Supreme court, but it is possible that Obama could prevail.

Ranb

[bakerjw]

Whatever happens, we have the potential of having a constitutional maelstrom on our hands. Personally I don't expect congress to act too quickly. Barry needs to get out there and campaign for a stricter law first. Once public opinion starts to sway, then we'll see a law.

But, constitutional or not, I wouldn't put something past him. He could sign an EO banning semi autos and what would happen? Would congress somehow find him in contempt? We know that the DOJ wouldn't lift a finger. Would Boehner, the spineless leader that he is, and the GOP stand up against it? What courts would get involved? I can see Barry's speech on such a matter. "Congress will not take steps to protect our children so I have to try to do what I can. I know that it's not constitutional, but we have to do something." He could drone on and on about the matter. Once celebrities and the MSM get on board, public opinion could be swayed strongly enough that the fact that it was unconstitutional would be irrelevant.

I don't have a crystal ball and I realize that an EO would be unconstitutional but this is their watershed moment and I expect them to push it like nothing we've seen before.

[MV10]

I have been discussing this issue on another forum. It was suggested that Obama could possibly use a national security statute to write an executive order to control firearms or ban them. That is an angle I had not thought of before as I thought any EO would reference the CGA of 1968 or the NFA of 1934.. I do not think it would stand up to the Supreme court, but it is possible that Obama could prevail.

Ranb

Depending very heavily, of course, on who is on the Supreme Court at the time.
That doesn't bode well for us either, partly in thanks to the screwheads who didn't vote for Mittens.

It's from the wrong team, but here is an interesting 1999 hearing on EOs and what Congress can do about them. The Background section is very relevant to the discussion.

http://democrats.rules.house.gov/archiv ... hear08.htm

[continuity]

...Any other EO could and would be challeged in court.

I'm gonna pick on you, even though you get a pat on the head for sticking it up.

IMHO, many well reasoned posts in this thread. An EO is sorta a paper tiger stand alone. That is, until the DOJ (today that entity is directed by Mr. Holder) provides positive reinforcement of the subject EO. Then the paper takes form of, The Law of The Land. Immediately.

Perhaps the USSC would address the issue, perhaps it wouldn't. Whatever the USSC decision, it would be time removed from the, at hand reality, of what the DOJ has proclaimed as Law.

If physical resistance is offered to the new law, force will be projected from the top down. Even if some of the more rural local authority(s) decide to be recalcitrant in effecting the "questionable new law", my SSNcN believes that urban jurisdictions would respond with a robust application of things.

And there you go... If widespread disobedience resulted, by either or both local LE/citizenry, it would appear to prevent the breakdown of law and order that a Federal force projection would result.

Epic nightmare scenario.

[ick]

The handwriting is on the wall.

Even King Belshazzar received a warning of what was to come. He received his warning and did nothing... and a short time later king of the Chaldeans was slain.

The coming challenges can't be avoided, and we all know it has been coming for a while now. Shifts in power, whether simply perceived or actually real... reasonable people remaining silent... and things like the future appointment of the judges including the Supreme Court... will all eventually play against freedom and liberty.

The march of bigger government lumbers on. All we can hope to do is slow it down.

[bakerjw]

And hope that we don't have to make the decision as to whether or not we will be felons for violating a ban.

[YugoRPK]

And hope that we don't have to make the decision as to whether or not we will be felons for violating a ban.

Without confiscation banning means nothing . There isnt the political will to confiscate. Even if there is a "ban" they will have to do what they did last time to be able to legally address what the law covers and that is new manufacture of semiauto rifles with certain features. That whole flash suppressor/bayonet lug boondoggle. Otherwise they are back to banning certain models and that didnt work either.

What "they" really want to ban is private sales without background checks. That's the whole "gun show loophole" thing that didnt have anything to do with the two most recent mass murders where the guns were stolen from their lawful owners.