- Joined
- Mar 5, 2008
- Messages
- 112,990
- Reaction score
- 60,556
- Location
- Sarasota Fla
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Use of "executive orders" instead of laws is insane. We have a Constitution that says that congress, not the president, makes the laws. The president, via the departments and agnencies that he oversees enforces, not makes, the law.
NICS background checks at the point of sale are very inefficient. Currently thousands of FFL dealers exist, yet they are not the only folks that transfer/sell guns and ammo. To better assure that ALL sales of guns/ammo are made to those legally allowed to purchase them is best dealt with much as driving permit checks are done. Simply require all states, upon the issue/update/renewal of their official, state issued, photo ID cards to adult US citizens, to perform the NICS database background checks; if the check is "passed" then incude "GUN OK" of the face of that ID card. Any sales/transfers, commercial or private, of guns//ammo must be made only to those bearing a valid, state issued, photo ID indicated to be "GUN OK".
The "style" of a gun, be it a pistol, rifle or shotgun has no bearing on its rate of fire. Legal civilian arms, without need of any further restrictions, are now those capable of only firing one round per trigger pull; as far as I know this is the current law. Having a semi-automatic gun with a detachable/changeable magazine is not a new invention - see Colt 1911.
The capacity of the magazine is a minor issue, since no limit of total rounds available or total mumber of magazines is proposed. Those that think the number of targets hit during the average time for LEO response will decrease signifcantly by using a limit of ten rounds per magazine, yet no limit on the number of guns, or total magazines would be sadly mistaken at a range test event. Example: I have two guns, each with a ten round magazine; I fire as rapidly as my skill will accomodate at targets down range, changing one or both magazines (three seconds each), thus for every twenty rounds fired I lose six seconds in magazine changes. You may ask; why the second gun? This is my "insurance" since, should someone try to "rush me", I have it fully loaded and available to deal with anyone thinking that after ten rounds I am then "defenseless", until I change magazines in my first gun.
The talk of "armor piercing" bullets is simply a ruse to make this largely undefined thing suffice to disallow many common rounds that can now penetrate metal and standard body armor. Remember when lead was going to be banned from use as a bullet material?
The more local cops on the street nonsense is simply a classic liberal income redictribution scheme. While presidents and congress critters love to talk about teachers, firefighters and police officers, unless they are federal employees, they are NOT a federal gov't power or responsibility. This nonsense is simply code for more borrow and spend. If taxation is to be used for these folks then it should be collected by the level of gov't for which they work. It is insane, and unconstitutional, to tax a Texan to put a cop in a school in CT.
Moronic duplication of gun violence by several federal agencies is insane. CDC has no businees concerning itself with gun crime statistics just as the FBI has no business in keeping school vaccination staitistics; this is simply useless expansion of dupicate federal efforts. Even more likely merely a lame attempt at using PPACA (or its desired UHC follow on) to treat gunshot wounds as a public health issue to try another angle on further restrictions of our 2A rights.
Of course, the "perfect" PPACA law forgot to address this gun realted "mental health crisis" so, while the federal cash is freely flowing with no need for "pay as you go", Obama will try to "beef up" his infamous PPACA with a few more unfunded "menatal health" mandates making it even more expensive.
Lots of talk lately about gun control, and about the constitutionality of said measures. Since the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of constitutionality in this country, which of these would not pass a Supreme Court challenge?
Note: Lots of poll options, please be patient as I type them all in. The poll will be up soon(tm).
Edit: poll up, choose as many as you want.
Source for info: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/wh_now_is_the_time_full.pdf
I've assumed that you're asking to vote for which actions you think would be unconstitutional if issued in the form of an Executive Order or Execution Action. I voted for four of them, since I think the others could be viewed as fine-tuning legislation already in place: assault weapons ban, outlawing straw purchasers, banning the mfgr of high capacity magazines and banning armor piercing ammunition. If those things were done by EO or EA, that would constitute making law rather than facilitating laws already in place.
My question deals specifically with whether these actions would be found to be constitutional. There have been lots of claims that Obama is implementing unconstitutional measures. I want to know which are.
No. I am asking which of those things is in itself unconstitutional.
No. I am asking which of those things is in itself unconstitutional.
I see. In that case then, Executive Orders and/or Executive Actions would have to be evaluated individually. Either of those could be found unconstitutional -- and have been. The rest of them? I don't think any of them would be found unconstitutional.
That is impossible to answer, since they are not worded as detailed law, simply goals or ideas. The devil, as always, is in those details. Much like asking is a law against murder unconstitutional - yes if no self defense provision is included, no if not.
I meant(and apparently clarity is not my strong suit today), whether Executive Orders as a concept, and Executive Actions as a concept, are constitutional. That is, are either unconstitutional simply by being an EO or EA. And yes, that argument has been made right here on this board. Not by many though.
Although there is no constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits executive orders, there is a vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, and furthered by the declaration "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 5. Most executive orders use these Constitutional reasonings as the authorization allowing for their issuance to be justified as part of the President's sworn duties, the intent being to help direct officers of the U.S. Executive carry out their delegated duties as well as the normal operations of the federal government: the consequence of failing to comply possibly being the removal from office.
Whgat would make any of them either constitutional or unconstitutional? Where would the line be?
Whgat would make any of them either constitutional or unconstitutional? Where would the line be?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?