1
1
0
Executive orders are supposed to be used in times of National Security matters protecting the executive branch. EO's do not write law and they do not supersede the Constitution of the United States.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/12/10/white-house-finalizing-plan-to-take-major-gun-control-action-using-executive-authority-valerie-jarrett-says/
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_GUNS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-12-10-12-31-01
http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Governor-Expected-to-Make-Major-Public-Safety-Announcement-361438091.html
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/12/10/white-house-finalizing-plan-to-take-major-gun-control-action-using-executive-authority-valerie-jarrett-says/
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_OBAMA_GUNS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-12-10-12-31-01
http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Governor-Expected-to-Make-Major-Public-Safety-Announcement-361438091.html
Posted in these groups: 
Government
Government
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 20
10
10
0
Executive Orders cannot be used to "create law." They can be used in "absence of Law" or to "clarify existing Law" however. The CURRENT LAW specifically allows Person to Person Transfers (what is miscalled the "gun show loophole") therefore "closing it" would be outside the power of an EO.
(10)
(0)
PO3 Brad Phlipot
Thank you SGT so glad to see so many can discern and think for themselves. I am so tired of the PC and BS mainstream media giving half truths.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
PO3 Dale S. You're correct, it should, but this falls under "discretionary Power." For example the UCMJ is "defined" by Legislature but actually "written" by Executive Order. The Controlled Substance Act (CSA) is the Framework of LAW, but the actual "schedule" (the drugs) within it are handled by the EOs.
Legislature moves to slowly to handle all instances in a Nation. EO allows for "policy" It MUST exist, though it can easily be abused.
The big thing is that it can't create Law. That's rule #1. It can be used to do things with Executive Power, but it has hard limits.
Legislature moves to slowly to handle all instances in a Nation. EO allows for "policy" It MUST exist, though it can easily be abused.
The big thing is that it can't create Law. That's rule #1. It can be used to do things with Executive Power, but it has hard limits.
(0)
(0)
7
7
0
Everyone focuses on the 2d Amendment, but the real issues with this EO is in relation to the Due Process Clause of the 5th and 14th Amendments. People on the "no-fly" list have not committed a crime, other than come to be watched by the federal government. They have also not had their day in court to determine that they are no longer competent to purchase or own a firearm. Without due process, this is pretty clearly unconstitutional.
(7)
(0)
LT (Join to see)
Bingo. As far as the no-fly list, it is also notoriously inaccurate and inaccessible to the public.
(3)
(0)
5
5
0
Background checks are common sense. (I am a Texan and pro-gun) However, if you try to take any type of gun off the table of ownership by private citizens the next civil war will begin. Why? Read the 2nd Amendment in its entirety. Internalize why it exists. At the heart of the amendment is a group of founding fathers that did not believe in a standing army (of which we were/are a part of). They felt that eventually that standing army could turn against its citizens. In order to allow those citizens to stand up to that standing army, "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed". So why assault weapons? The 2nd amendment is not the protect the right to hunt or sport. It is to protect against a standing army, armed with assault rifles, turning against its citizens.
(5)
(0)
PO3 Brad Phlipot
Yes sir I am aware of this as my links detailed coming executive actions. Someone on the "No Fly List" has not actually committed a crime or had a trial by their peers. To say that anyone on this list cannot own a firearm is a breach of law, hell 72 DHS employees are on the No Fly List and countless others that do not even know they are on it. The best one I read and researched was a 2yr old was added to the list. WTF, over.
(1)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
lol I can heard some echo on the background calling you an extremist :).
Keep the powder dry :P.
Keep the powder dry :P.
(0)
(0)
SN Greg Wright
CW4 (Join to see) Not sure civil war is the proper term. More like, revolution. Insurrection? It'd pretty much be be the whole country fighting the gubment, not each other. IMO.
(0)
(0)
CW4 (Join to see)
We prolly need something to unite everyone. The divider-in-chief has done a great job racially dividing everyone. Nothing brings people together like a common enemy.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
The 2nd Amendment exists for this exact reason over zealous narcissistic tyrants that believe they are better than the law.
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
Executive Orders are instructions to Federal staff on how they should conduct their work and provide limitations for Federal Programs. They are not binding on the public, they are not law and any attempt to use them as such is unconstitutional.
A case in point is on immigration.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/appeals-court-rules-against-obamas-immigration-plan/2015/11/09/c73f38b0-874c-11e5-be39-0034bb576eee_story.html
A case in point is on immigration.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/appeals-court-rules-against-obamas-immigration-plan/2015/11/09/c73f38b0-874c-11e5-be39-0034bb576eee_story.html
Appeals court rules against Obama’s immigration plan
The 2-to-1 ruling from the New Orleans court sets stage for possible Supreme Court battle.
(3)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
You are absolutely right. But, have the same effect as passed legislation and all existing laws. Easy for the next President to eliminate them but it seldom happens.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
They should not be....and if it's to change or create law, absolutely not, but try telling that to Obama.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
I think this is going to hurt Hillary. She will be tagged with being on the soft on terrorism party. Obama is not worried about it. The SCOTUS should put Obama in his place if he try's to do this by executive order.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Executive orders can only implement policy subject to the law. That's it. There is no authority to write new law with them.
(2)
(0)
CDR Terry Boles
SCPO Joshua A.
Its unfortunate that this point is glossed over with rhetoric that with a pen POTUS (past and present) can legally do anything.
I may not agree with certain laws, but I do believe we enforce those laws until they are changed-updated by congress. Otherwise, why should any law be obeyed by any citizen if POTUS ignores any law he disagrees with and simply executes an Executive Order which circumvents the law as written. Look no further than sanctuary cities and the problems that exist within, and the local governments who have taken similar fashion as POTUS of ignoring current laws.
This use of Executive Orders in the manner they have been used recently has to be addressed by the Supreme Court and put to rest!
Its unfortunate that this point is glossed over with rhetoric that with a pen POTUS (past and present) can legally do anything.
I may not agree with certain laws, but I do believe we enforce those laws until they are changed-updated by congress. Otherwise, why should any law be obeyed by any citizen if POTUS ignores any law he disagrees with and simply executes an Executive Order which circumvents the law as written. Look no further than sanctuary cities and the problems that exist within, and the local governments who have taken similar fashion as POTUS of ignoring current laws.
This use of Executive Orders in the manner they have been used recently has to be addressed by the Supreme Court and put to rest!
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
To a politician, until an impeachment or civil war happen ... I don't think this will ever stop.
(2)
(0)
PO3 Brad Phlipot
Agree. God only knows how many of us pray we never see a civil war or for that matter any kind of conflict on American soil, we owe our children, grandchildren and future generations every possible effort to avoid this.
(2)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
PO3 Brad Phlipot - ... I got two kids ... and possibly more, People are crazy that thinking me wanted a civil war. Do anyone wanted Civil war? except for those that hunger for power.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Well as a stop gap measure it has been done since time immemorial. First one that comes to mind is the Gettysburg Address as an executive order freeing the slaves until congress got around to the 14th amendment.
(1)
(0)
PO3 Brad Phlipot
No question all Presidents have used in excess EO's. I am questioning this particular event.
(0)
(0)
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
It has always been debated and will continue to be debated long after we are both gone Shipmate but I suspect that a Visiting Constitutional Law Professor probably knows the Ins and Outs of the system better than either one of us.
(0)
(0)
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
Also I will believe it when I see it. I am no Friend of the Gun and Ammo Manufacturers but they have so corrupted our Political Systems that I don't think anything will ever be done.
(0)
(0)
PO1 William "Chip" Nagel
I have nothing but Contempt for those that have thoroughly Prostituted themselves to the Gun and Ammo Manufacturers.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google