Executive Action on Guns Coming Tonight???

[Beiruty]

Anti guns do not care about background checks.
They want Gun Registration, NOW.
0 compliance.

[Right2Carry]

I took an oath to defend this Country and Constitution from enemies both Foreign and Domestic. I plan to uphold my oath till the day I die.

[viking1000]

Something to be said for oaths..
I remember taking oaths for the Army and as a law enforcement officer, when I left the service and law enforcement, I do not remember anyone saying, oh you can forget about those oaths you took they do not matter any more..

[DevilDawg]

Here we go again, another gun scare....... No ammo anywhere....again.

I got in before the lock and ordered 1,000 freedom pills each in .45 & 5.56 from Freedom Munitions while they had them in stock. And as a bonus from them got flat rate $7.50 on shipping thanks to current promo "25 Days of Christmas". It's only for today, and probably only going to be good now up till 8pm Eastern. Not LOL.

[der Teufel]

EA would affect Fed employees. Anything that an average joe to do, or forced to do, needs a Federal Law. Nothing would happen when Congress is run by GOP.

While I agree in principle, didn't Obama/Holder/BATFE initiate a Demand Letter requiring the reporting of multiple sales of certain long guns by Federal Firearms Licensees in the four Southwest Border States?

Certainly that affected more than just Federal employees, although it did not (to my knowledge) inhibit sales. As a result, I'm not sure exactly where the Prez would draw the line concerning his perception of his powers.

[Glockster]

I disagree. All he has to do is CLAIM that it has a basis under the constitution to be able to issue it. For example, interstate commerce. And then it is perfectly legal and binding on all, right up to when months and months down the road a court declares that to be unconstitional. My point is that he is fighting leaving a legacy now, so what does he have to loose.

Nope. The Interstate Commerce Clause and similar grant power to the Congress, not the President. He can act only under a grant to the President under the Constitution, as therein limited, or under a grant in a statute.

Even a professor of Constitutional Law knows that! A claim that ultra vires would be hooted down DOA.

Again, I disagree. Yes, you can certainly read discussions about what limitations there may be, claimed that is, and also how they can only impact the Executive branch, but there are many examples from Washington on down where they were issued, and they had broad application and certainly impacted all parts of not only the Federal government, but the country in general.

I don't know what any professor of Constitutional Law (Obama) knows vs. claims, but I am pretty sure that many believed that immigration would fall under the same restrictions. And yet:
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/20 ... n-is-clear

he only difference between the president and his predecessors is that the president has openly declared the de facto policy of his predecessors. We might disagree about whether this move is wise, but it’s not a constitutional violation.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresid ... Orders.htm
Describes the two limitations of Presidential Executive Orders:

While they do bypass the U.S. Congress and the standard legislative law making process, no part of an executive order may direct the agencies to conduct illegal or unconstitutional activities.

Article II, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution reads, in part, "The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America." And, Article II, section 3 asserts that, "The President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed..." Since the Constitution does not specifically define executive power, critics of executive orders argue that these two passages do not imply constitutional authority. But, Presidents of the United States since George Washington have argued that they do and have used them accordingly.

From Cornell Law, which probably has some sense of what a Presidential Executive Order can or can't do:
Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/executive_power

Executive Orders

In times of emergency, the president can override congress and issue executive orders with almost limitless power. Abraham Lincoln used an executive order in order to fight the Civil War, Woodrow Wilson issued one in order to arm the United States just before it entered World War I, and Franklin Roosevelt approved Japanese internment camps during World War II with an executive order. Many other executive orders are on file and could be enacted at any time.

http://www.cnbc.com/2014/01/28/executiv ... -work.html

Most executive orders stem from a president's desire to bypass Congress. The legislative body is not required to approve any executive order, nor can it overturn an order. The best it can do if it doesn't like an executive order is to pass a law to cut funding for the order's implementation. But even then, the president can veto such a defunding law.

President Abraham Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeus corpus and the Emancipation Proclamation during the Civil War.
President Franklin Roosevelt—who holds the record for most executive orders—issued one in 1942 that led to Japanese-Americans internment camps during World War II.
President Harry Truman integrated the armed forces under an executive order in 1948.
President Dwight Eisenhower issued an executive order in 1957 dispatching federal troops to Little Rock, Ark., where crowds had prevented the desegregation of all-white Central High School.
Both President John F. Kennedy and President Lyndon Johnson used executive orders in the 1960s to bar racial discrimination in federal housing, hiring and contracting.
President Ronald Reagan used an executive order in 1984 to bar the use of federal funds for advocating abortion. President Bill Clinton reversed it when he took office in 1993.
Clinton used a series of executive orders to allow U.S. military forces to fight in the Balkans in the 1990s.
President George W. Bush issued an executive order in 2001 that restricted public access to the papers of former presidents. Obama revoked it in 2009.
Obama's executive orders include one in 2012 halting the deportation of hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children. He also issued one raising the minimum wage for federally contracted workers to $10.10 from $7.25 an hour.

But most importantly, I'm going to wait and see what he is going to say about gun control tonight now that it's been announced in multiple places that he's going to say something about it.

[AJSully421]

Obummer is going to address the nation on TV tonight from the Oval Office. I just heard on FoxNews that there is speculation he will announce executive action on guns tonight.

I'm headed off to church this morning...but seriously thinking of heading to Academy afterwards. What do ya'll think?

What on earth are you going to get at Academy? You should already have two of anything that you might possibly need in a ban situation.

[mojo84]

NRA response. Worth watching and sharing.

https://youtu.be/AFwrtPwg40s

[rotor]

My local gun store was packed yesterday.

From my local paper yesterday

"Here’s another fact. There are nearly as many firearms in civilian hands in this country as there are civilian hands to hold them — more than 300 million. That doesn’t mean there are 300 million gun owners. Stats I’ve seen indicate all those guns are owned by about a third of the population. That’s still 100 million gun owners. I’m not aware of any standing army in the world — or any combination of standing armies — that has 100 million armed members. Of course, armies have bigger more powerful weapons, while private gun owners might count in their arsenals nothing more than Grandpa’s old bird-hunting shotgun gathering dust in the attic. But 300 million guns in 100 million hands represents a significant amount of firepower and that number seems to be growing steadily."

Not too worried about all of this.

[JALLEN]

I disagree. All he has to do is CLAIM that it has a basis under the constitution to be able to issue it. For example, interstate commerce. And then it is perfectly legal and binding on all, right up to when months and months down the road a court declares that to be unconstitional. My point is that he is fighting leaving a legacy now, so what does he have to loose.

Nope. The Interstate Commerce Clause and similar grant power to the Congress, not the President. He can act only under a grant to the President under the Constitution, as therein limited, or under a grant in a statute.

Even a professor of Constitutional Law knows that! A claim that ultra vires would be hooted down DOA.

Again, I disagree. Yes, you can certainly read discussions about what limitations there may be, claimed that is, and also how they can only impact the Executive branch, but there are many examples from Washington on down where they were issued, and they had broad application and certainly impacted all parts of not only the Federal government, but the country in general.

I don't know what any professor of Constitutional Law (Obama) knows vs. claims, but I am pretty sure that many believed that immigration would fall under the same restrictions. And yet:
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/20 ... n-is-clear

he only difference between the president and his predecessors is that the president has openly declared the de facto policy of his predecessors. We might disagree about whether this move is wise, but it’s not a constitutional violation.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresid ... Orders.htm
Describes the two limitations of Presidential Executive Orders:

While they do bypass the U.S. Congress and the standard legislative law making process, no part of an executive order may direct the agencies to conduct illegal or unconstitutional activities.

Article II, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution reads, in part, "The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America." And, Article II, section 3 asserts that, "The President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed..." Since the Constitution does not specifically define executive power, critics of executive orders argue that these two passages do not imply constitutional authority. But, Presidents of the United States since George Washington have argued that they do and have used them accordingly.

From Cornell Law, which probably has some sense of what a Presidential Executive Order can or can't do:
Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/executive_power

Executive Orders

In times of emergency, the president can override congress and issue executive orders with almost limitless power. Abraham Lincoln used an executive order in order to fight the Civil War, Woodrow Wilson issued one in order to arm the United States just before it entered World War I, and Franklin Roosevelt approved Japanese internment camps during World War II with an executive order. Many other executive orders are on file and could be enacted at any time.

http://www.cnbc.com/2014/01/28/executiv ... -work.html

Most executive orders stem from a president's desire to bypass Congress. The legislative body is not required to approve any executive order, nor can it overturn an order. The best it can do if it doesn't like an executive order is to pass a law to cut funding for the order's implementation. But even then, the president can veto such a defunding law.

President Abraham Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeus corpus and the Emancipation Proclamation during the Civil War.
President Franklin Roosevelt—who holds the record for most executive orders—issued one in 1942 that led to Japanese-Americans internment camps during World War II.
President Harry Truman integrated the armed forces under an executive order in 1948.
President Dwight Eisenhower issued an executive order in 1957 dispatching federal troops to Little Rock, Ark., where crowds had prevented the desegregation of all-white Central High School.
Both President John F. Kennedy and President Lyndon Johnson used executive orders in the 1960s to bar racial discrimination in federal housing, hiring and contracting.
President Ronald Reagan used an executive order in 1984 to bar the use of federal funds for advocating abortion. President Bill Clinton reversed it when he took office in 1993.
Clinton used a series of executive orders to allow U.S. military forces to fight in the Balkans in the 1990s.
President George W. Bush issued an executive order in 2001 that restricted public access to the papers of former presidents. Obama revoked it in 2009.
Obama's executive orders include one in 2012 halting the deportation of hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children. He also issued one raising the minimum wage for federally contracted workers to $10.10 from $7.25 an hour.

But most importantly, I'm going to wait and see what he is going to say about gun control tonight now that it's been announced in multiple places that he's going to say something about it.

Go look at those EOs to see what the claimed source of authority was. In the order raising minimum wage for contracted workers, I believe EO 13658, it provided:

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, 40 U.S.C. 101 et seq., and in order to promote economy and efficiency in procurement by contracting with sources who adequately compensate their workers, it is hereby ordered as follows:

.....

President Truman signed EO 9538 which commenced:

By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 1753 of the Revised Statutes and by section 2 of the Civil Service Act (22 Stat. 403), it is hereby ordered as follows:

.......

Not all contain the specific source of authority but should.

Wikipedia puts it thusly:

The President can issue executive orders pursuant to a grant of discretion from Congress, or under the inherent powers that office holds to deal with certain matters of foreign policy.

Many early executive orders were not recorded. The State Department began numbering executive orders in the early 20th century, starting retroactively from President Abraham Lincoln's Executive Order Establishing a Provisional Court in Louisiana issued in 1862.

I fully realize that Obama has and intends to continue to press the envelope, but like the judge in Brownsville understood, and the 5th Circuit thus far agrees, the President can't do what he wants without authority.

[Glockster]

I disagree. All he has to do is CLAIM that it has a basis under the constitution to be able to issue it. For example, interstate commerce. And then it is perfectly legal and binding on all, right up to when months and months down the road a court declares that to be unconstitional. My point is that he is fighting leaving a legacy now, so what does he have to loose.

Nope. The Interstate Commerce Clause and similar grant power to the Congress, not the President. He can act only under a grant to the President under the Constitution, as therein limited, or under a grant in a statute.

Even a professor of Constitutional Law knows that! A claim that ultra vires would be hooted down DOA.

Again, I disagree. Yes, you can certainly read discussions about what limitations there may be, claimed that is, and also how they can only impact the Executive branch, but there are many examples from Washington on down where they were issued, and they had broad application and certainly impacted all parts of not only the Federal government, but the country in general.

I don't know what any professor of Constitutional Law (Obama) knows vs. claims, but I am pretty sure that many believed that immigration would fall under the same restrictions. And yet:
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/20 ... n-is-clear

he only difference between the president and his predecessors is that the president has openly declared the de facto policy of his predecessors. We might disagree about whether this move is wise, but it’s not a constitutional violation.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresid ... Orders.htm
Describes the two limitations of Presidential Executive Orders:

While they do bypass the U.S. Congress and the standard legislative law making process, no part of an executive order may direct the agencies to conduct illegal or unconstitutional activities.

Article II, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution reads, in part, "The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America." And, Article II, section 3 asserts that, "The President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed..." Since the Constitution does not specifically define executive power, critics of executive orders argue that these two passages do not imply constitutional authority. But, Presidents of the United States since George Washington have argued that they do and have used them accordingly.

From Cornell Law, which probably has some sense of what a Presidential Executive Order can or can't do:
Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/executive_power

Executive Orders

In times of emergency, the president can override congress and issue executive orders with almost limitless power. Abraham Lincoln used an executive order in order to fight the Civil War, Woodrow Wilson issued one in order to arm the United States just before it entered World War I, and Franklin Roosevelt approved Japanese internment camps during World War II with an executive order. Many other executive orders are on file and could be enacted at any time.

http://www.cnbc.com/2014/01/28/executiv ... -work.html

Most executive orders stem from a president's desire to bypass Congress. The legislative body is not required to approve any executive order, nor can it overturn an order. The best it can do if it doesn't like an executive order is to pass a law to cut funding for the order's implementation. But even then, the president can veto such a defunding law.

President Abraham Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeus corpus and the Emancipation Proclamation during the Civil War.
President Franklin Roosevelt—who holds the record for most executive orders—issued one in 1942 that led to Japanese-Americans internment camps during World War II.
President Harry Truman integrated the armed forces under an executive order in 1948.
President Dwight Eisenhower issued an executive order in 1957 dispatching federal troops to Little Rock, Ark., where crowds had prevented the desegregation of all-white Central High School.
Both President John F. Kennedy and President Lyndon Johnson used executive orders in the 1960s to bar racial discrimination in federal housing, hiring and contracting.
President Ronald Reagan used an executive order in 1984 to bar the use of federal funds for advocating abortion. President Bill Clinton reversed it when he took office in 1993.
Clinton used a series of executive orders to allow U.S. military forces to fight in the Balkans in the 1990s.
President George W. Bush issued an executive order in 2001 that restricted public access to the papers of former presidents. Obama revoked it in 2009.
Obama's executive orders include one in 2012 halting the deportation of hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children. He also issued one raising the minimum wage for federally contracted workers to $10.10 from $7.25 an hour.

But most importantly, I'm going to wait and see what he is going to say about gun control tonight now that it's been announced in multiple places that he's going to say something about it.

Go look at those EOs to see what the claimed source of authority was. In the order raising minimum wage for contracted workers, I believe EO 13658, it provided:

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, 40 U.S.C. 101 et seq., and in order to promote economy and efficiency in procurement by contracting with sources who adequately compensate their workers, it is hereby ordered as follows:

.....

President Truman signed EO 9538 which commenced:

By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 1753 of the Revised Statutes and by section 2 of the Civil Service Act (22 Stat. 403), it is hereby ordered as follows:

.......

Not all contain the specific source of authority but should.

Wikipedia puts it thusly:

The President can issue executive orders pursuant to a grant of discretion from Congress, or under the inherent powers that office holds to deal with certain matters of foreign policy.

Many early executive orders were not recorded. The State Department began numbering executive orders in the early 20th century, starting retroactively from President Abraham Lincoln's Executive Order Establishing a Provisional Court in Louisiana issued in 1862.

I fully realize that Obama has and intends to continue to press the envelope, but like the judge in Brownsville understood, and the 5th Circuit thus far agrees, the President can't do what he wants without authority.

And my point remains that any president can simply claim authority under the constitution - refer to just one example of the above, Japanese American interment. And he can then allocate resources to implement and enforce. Until it is defended or the court rules otherwise.

Regardless, I'm only pondering what he might do but agree that it is much more likely that he won't accomplish anything other than fire folks up.

[mojo84]

I disagree. All he has to do is CLAIM that it has a basis under the constitution to be able to issue it. For example, interstate commerce. And then it is perfectly legal and binding on all, right up to when months and months down the road a court declares that to be unconstitional. My point is that he is fighting leaving a legacy now, so what does he have to loose.

Nope. The Interstate Commerce Clause and similar grant power to the Congress, not the President. He can act only under a grant to the President under the Constitution, as therein limited, or under a grant in a statute.

Even a professor of Constitutional Law knows that! A claim that ultra vires would be hooted down DOA.

Again, I disagree. Yes, you can certainly read discussions about what limitations there may be, claimed that is, and also how they can only impact the Executive branch, but there are many examples from Washington on down where they were issued, and they had broad application and certainly impacted all parts of not only the Federal government, but the country in general.

I don't know what any professor of Constitutional Law (Obama) knows vs. claims, but I am pretty sure that many believed that immigration would fall under the same restrictions. And yet:
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/20 ... n-is-clear

he only difference between the president and his predecessors is that the president has openly declared the de facto policy of his predecessors. We might disagree about whether this move is wise, but it’s not a constitutional violation.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresid ... Orders.htm
Describes the two limitations of Presidential Executive Orders:

While they do bypass the U.S. Congress and the standard legislative law making process, no part of an executive order may direct the agencies to conduct illegal or unconstitutional activities.

Article II, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution reads, in part, "The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America." And, Article II, section 3 asserts that, "The President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed..." Since the Constitution does not specifically define executive power, critics of executive orders argue that these two passages do not imply constitutional authority. But, Presidents of the United States since George Washington have argued that they do and have used them accordingly.

From Cornell Law, which probably has some sense of what a Presidential Executive Order can or can't do:
Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/executive_power

Executive Orders

In times of emergency, the president can override congress and issue executive orders with almost limitless power. Abraham Lincoln used an executive order in order to fight the Civil War, Woodrow Wilson issued one in order to arm the United States just before it entered World War I, and Franklin Roosevelt approved Japanese internment camps during World War II with an executive order. Many other executive orders are on file and could be enacted at any time.

http://www.cnbc.com/2014/01/28/executiv ... -work.html

Most executive orders stem from a president's desire to bypass Congress. The legislative body is not required to approve any executive order, nor can it overturn an order. The best it can do if it doesn't like an executive order is to pass a law to cut funding for the order's implementation. But even then, the president can veto such a defunding law.

President Abraham Lincoln's suspension of the writ of habeus corpus and the Emancipation Proclamation during the Civil War.
President Franklin Roosevelt—who holds the record for most executive orders—issued one in 1942 that led to Japanese-Americans internment camps during World War II.
President Harry Truman integrated the armed forces under an executive order in 1948.
President Dwight Eisenhower issued an executive order in 1957 dispatching federal troops to Little Rock, Ark., where crowds had prevented the desegregation of all-white Central High School.
Both President John F. Kennedy and President Lyndon Johnson used executive orders in the 1960s to bar racial discrimination in federal housing, hiring and contracting.
President Ronald Reagan used an executive order in 1984 to bar the use of federal funds for advocating abortion. President Bill Clinton reversed it when he took office in 1993.
Clinton used a series of executive orders to allow U.S. military forces to fight in the Balkans in the 1990s.
President George W. Bush issued an executive order in 2001 that restricted public access to the papers of former presidents. Obama revoked it in 2009.
Obama's executive orders include one in 2012 halting the deportation of hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children. He also issued one raising the minimum wage for federally contracted workers to $10.10 from $7.25 an hour.

But most importantly, I'm going to wait and see what he is going to say about gun control tonight now that it's been announced in multiple places that he's going to say something about it.

Go look at those EOs to see what the claimed source of authority was. In the order raising minimum wage for contracted workers, I believe EO 13658, it provided:

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, 40 U.S.C. 101 et seq., and in order to promote economy and efficiency in procurement by contracting with sources who adequately compensate their workers, it is hereby ordered as follows:

.....

President Truman signed EO 9538 which commenced:

By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 1753 of the Revised Statutes and by section 2 of the Civil Service Act (22 Stat. 403), it is hereby ordered as follows:

.......

Not all contain the specific source of authority but should.

Wikipedia puts it thusly:

The President can issue executive orders pursuant to a grant of discretion from Congress, or under the inherent powers that office holds to deal with certain matters of foreign policy.

Many early executive orders were not recorded. The State Department began numbering executive orders in the early 20th century, starting retroactively from President Abraham Lincoln's Executive Order Establishing a Provisional Court in Louisiana issued in 1862.

I fully realize that Obama has and intends to continue to press the envelope, but like the judge in Brownsville understood, and the 5th Circuit thus far agrees, the President can't do what he wants without authority.

What you seem to be not graspng is that Obama, some cops and some judges sometimes do things outside their authority and get away with it.

Another example is how administrationkeeps change the laws regarding the ACA/Obamacare.

The system is not perfect.

[Blindref757]

Obummer is going to address the nation on TV tonight from the Oval Office. I just heard on FoxNews that there is speculation he will announce executive action on guns tonight.

I'm headed off to church this morning...but seriously thinking of heading to Academy afterwards. What do ya'll think?

What on earth are you going to get at Academy? You should already have two of anything that you might possibly need in a ban situation.

Been wanting the Glock 43 for a while now...so I went and they had one...on sale for $479.

[Abraham]

Molon Labe!

[Rmartinez37]

Molon Labe!

Nuff' said!!!