How much damage can be done with executive orders?

[lionking]

Assuming we get a anti gun president and hold onto the congress, what damage can be done to us with executive orders?

Can online buying be a target with a EO?
How much can be done with a EO regarding ammo?
How much damage can be done to us regarding overseas shipments of guns and ammo?
Ect.......

I know Obama did some EO, this time I believe gun owners may be in for a even more rougher ride, so wondering how far it can go legally.

 

[Corpral_Agarn]

nevermind

 

[cslinger]

Obama had 8 years ....... just saying.

 

[Hrbie22]

Not trying to get to deep in this and hoping this isn't taken as politics, but more so government related. But I'm fairly certain that senate isn't as relevant with EO. However the SC can declare an EO unconstitutional. Regardless of who the president is.

 

[SharpDog]

The federal branch has the power to tax and regulate (cough ... bump stocks cough, cough)

They can also bring lawsuits against entities they do not like, and they can do that fast and furiously ...

 

[lionking]

Not trying to get to deep in this and hoping this isn't taken as politics,

It is not politics, it is a potential fact we might be facing soon. If I sound ignorant on the powers of a president sorry, just would like to know how far a executive order can go because you know they will try to do as much as they can.

For example overseas supply of ammo, and so on.

 

[lionking]

Obama had 8 years ....... just saying.

He did and with a EO he banned Garands and others from coming back over, Bush the first banned foreign guns to a extent, Just want a idea of how grim it could get with executive orders.

 

[JohnKSa]

Find the law that prevents the import of most small arms and ammunition from China. You won't be able to. Clinton did that with executive action and it still stands.

 

[tommy.duncan]

Thanks to the 3 scoops in the SC, We should be Okay.

 

[Golfanaticshooter]

If the worst case scenario happens, we should all think "sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc." Not just pretty words...

 

[Howland937]

If I recall correctly, executive orders are still subject to appeal through the courts. Seems like certain district courts issued quite a few rulings blocking EO's fairly recently, and then the Supreme Court still has the ability to uphold or strike down if it gets to that point. I'm hopeful there are enough recent judicial appointees that are 2A friendly, that any restrictive measures attempted will quickly become a losing effort.

 

[Craig_AR]

Assuming we get a anti gun president and hold onto the congress, what damage can be done to us with executive orders?

An Executive Order is only directive (authoritative) to the Executive Branch of the Federal government. It is not a law, and is not supposed to try to order state and local governments or citizens to do anything. In the legal theory, an Executive Order is supposed to be how a President implements a law. That said, some of President Obama's EOs seemed to cross the line and result in direct impact on the public with out relying on an empowering law. The biggest example is DACA. They stood because no one successfully challenged them in court.
Given how Obama used EOs in this manner, we might see similar overstepping by a new Administration after January 20.

 

[crestoncowboy]

Obama accomplished very little in reality with EO.

Trump on the other hand made law abiding citizens chose to destroy their legally purchased items or be criminals.

I never owned nor wanted a bump stock personally.... but it was a pretty creaky thing to do since atf had already ruled.

I suppose EO could be pretty bad. Idk.

 

[Howland937]

They stood because no one successfully challenged them in court.

The shift in dynamic at the highest court as well as a lot of lower courts may fix most of that. Not the DACA concern, but the overreach from the executive office.

 

[BreechFace]

I would be most concerned with the banning of overseas ammunition and firearms from being imported.

My main concern for the 2A lies with the corrupt politburo that we have for media nowadays. Any firearm used in such a way that can be spun to whip up a frenzy will be accepted and utilized by a freedom grabbing president who’s already said is coming after guns.

 

[wiscoaster]

Presidents have been trying to expand their power and authority since, well, George Washington. FDR issued the most executive orders of any President. But then, he was President during the Great Depression and then WW II and probably needed to throw his weight around considerably to get things done. Woodrow Wilson comes in second with 1800, and he didn't get much of anything done. Obama doesn't even make the top ten, and Trump trails him. What Craig_VA posted about how an executive order can be used is correct.

Table of presidential executive orders: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/executive-orders

 

[Tommygunn]

Ban the import of Italian made repros of 19th century BP guns? Berettas? Japanese Miroku made Winchesters?

Dunno.

Let's not borrow trouble.

It will be shoved down our throats soon enough .........

 

[e rex]

Momma used to say "don't go borrowing trouble, you'll get enough without borrowing any."

 

[jhb]

doesn't the president oversee and have big influence power over the atf......dont forget that.

 

[DocRock]

A lot less after four years of Trump nominating and the Senate confirming conservative judges

 

[mnrivrat]

I should be more familiar with this than I am. The congress is made up of the upper (senate) and lower (house). and each has its roll in government as well as the executive branch. Vito power I think rests with all three depending on ?? I think a EO can be vetoed but I am not sure of the qty needed, and if both houses are needed for an override. I await better knowledge than I have. Trump accomplished a lot with EO's so I believe Harris could do a lot of damage with them. Biden will be happy in the basement sniffing the hair on his Barbie doll, but that is a different forum.

 

[Craig_AR]

The congress is made up of the upper (senate) and lower (house). and each has its roll in government as well as the executive branch. Vito power I think rests with all three depending on ?? I think a EO can be vetoed but I am not sure of the qty needed, and if both houses are needed for an override.

The Federal government is set up in three branches: Legislative (Congress, made up of two houses), Executive (President and departments and agencies), and Judicial (Courts, from Supreme Court down). Creating laws normally require cooperation of the Executive and Legislative branches working together. Congress (both houses) must pass a bill and then the President signs it to become law. The exception to this is if Congress passes a bill and the President vetoes the bill, it can still become law by each house of Congress voting to over-ride the veto by a minimum 2/3 vote.
Back to the cooperation aspect: for a law to be effective, it must be enforced by the Executive Branch. Criminal laws are enforced by the Executive Branch through various law enforcement agencies (FBI, DHS, ATF, etc.), prosecuted by the Dept of Justice, and adjudicated in the courts (Judicial Branch). Laws with administrative instead of criminal purpose are implemented by the departments and agencies through regulations, such as the Department of Interior regulations on firearms on public lands.
The purpose of the Executive Order is for the President to give directions to departments and agencies on how to implement laws. Usually this happens by the EO telling a department what to include in their published regulations. Congress can override a published regulation through a special vote, but only for a limited time after the regulation has been published. Past that, it takes either a new law (which of course follows the above process) to invalidate the regulation. Alternately, a civil suit in the courts may argue that the regulation is invalid because it is did not comply with the law it claimed to implement. That is how EOs and regulations can be stopped through the Judicial Branch, in the same manner as the courts may invalidate a law by ruling it unconstitutional.

All the above is how it is supposed to work. The topic of judicial overreach (creating laws from the bench) deserves its own discussion.

 

[jmorris]

Trump set a bad precedent when he took out bumpstocks with a new rule vs a change in law from congress. Despite their ignorance of firearms, I figured after that it would be only a matter of time for one of them to realize a sliding stock isn’t needed to bump fire a semiautomatic and it could easily be applied to all of them, rifles and pistols.

How bad would that be?

 

[BreechFace]

Trump set a bad precedent when he took out bumpstocks with a new rule vs a change in law from congress. Despite their ignorance of firearms, I figured after that it would be only a matter of time for one of them to realize a sliding stock isn’t needed to bump fire a semiautomatic and it could easily be applied to all of them, rifles and pistols.

How bad would that be?

That is/was a definite weakness in Trump he acted and/or spoke before he thought about ramifications in a lot of areas. The 2A supporters that didn’t hold his feet to the fire on bumpstocks will rue the day when we get a real gun grabber in office.

The whole overreach/overuse/abuse with executive orders that’s been going on for a long time sets a bad precedence against our separation of powers structure that our founding fathers designed.

 

[theotherwaldo]

Not much, since 'Operation Red Mirage' has apparently failed in one key point.
They didn't take the Senate... .