Can Illegal EXECUTIVE ORDERS Be Enforced?

[Cold Steel]

The way I understand it, a President can sign executive orders clarifying or filling in parts of existing law. But he's not supposed to be able to create laws where there is none; only execute existing laws. For example, if the law states one needs a federal firearms license to sell guns as part of a business, a President can arguably state that anyone selling X many guns a year is engaged in a business (though the courts are the ones that have reserved that power to themselves).

In Obama's case, I'm not sure what what he has in mind, but if someone violates a law coming out of the Executive Branch, can that person be prosecuted for violating that law? Clearly an executive law requiring a person to federally transfer private gun sales in a state where sales are legal between two private parties would be both illegal and unenforceable.

Or would it?

FDR signed EXECUTIVE ORDER 6102 in 1933 outlawing the possession of gold. There was a fairly sensational prosecution under this order when New York attorney Frederick Campbell, attempted to withdraw more than 5,000 troy ounces of gold on deposit at Chase National. Chase refused, citing the order, and Campbell sued Chase. Campbell was immediately indicted for failure to surrender his gold. And though the prosecution failed, Campbell's gold was confiscated. It could have been worse, as violation of the order was punishable by a fine of $10,000 and ten years in prison. The only reason the prosecution failed was because the order, to be legal, was issued and signed by FDR and not the Secretary of the Treasury. Still, Campbell lost his gold and the following year the Gold Reserve Act was passed, which made it all legal I suppose.

Where are the limits? Federal law supersedes state law, but is an executive order federal law? And if the federal government doesn't enforce the laws already on the books, why would it enforce laws that are relatively minor?

Another issue is, if Obama sets a limit on how many guns someone can sell without an FFL, the media is saying it will force those people to get licenses. But doesn't that mean the government will be forced to issue those licenses? (And it's often difficult to get an FFL...and some states restrict residents from getting them unless engaged in a bona fide business.

So what's going on?




.

 

[Boom Boom]

It's a slippery slope. Were it to become accepted as law by way of precedent alone, then Congress becomes irrelevant except for passing budgets and the USA essentially becomes a tyranny.

 

[5.56blaster]

He's an A$$hole who thinks he's a king. One more F$*king year. Unless hillary gets in then were really F$%ked. That's the simple answer.

 

[smokey]

If I sell a long gun to my sister in law living across the street, how do the feds have any say in something that doesn't cross a state border?

 

[whistlersmother]

By stretching the hell out of the commerce clause....

 

[breimer273]

So to answer your question.... Yes and no. An executive order is still subject to the scrutiny of the supreme court, just like any other law. If it is deemed unconstitutional then it obviously can't be enforced.

To answer the more subtle question, to me it doesn't seem like this executive order actually creates any laws. Only changing the way the current laws have been enforced in the past. I'm no expert, nor am I a lawyer, but "expanding" background checks to include private sales is not something that the original law said isn't required, but simply wasn't mentioned. Some states already required this anyway (take our wonderful home state for example - for some guns anyway).

The things that it does create are the orders given to DHS, DoJ, and DoD to come up with "smart" and "safe" gun technology. I'd like to be in the room when those ideas get pitched.

 

[Vile Shadow]

It's a slippery slope. Were it to become accepted as law by way of precedent alone, then Congress becomes irrelevant except for passing budgets and the USA essentially becomes a tyranny.

From where I sit, that horse left the barn long ago, and the gold case is just another example.

 

[Mr H]

Point of clarity (though I really am cloudy on the distinction)...

These are "Executive Actions" which I believe are administrative in nature, and not (or is it less?) subject to judicial review.

Exec. Orders are broader in scope, and seem to be more 'structural' and come closer to Constitutional scrutiny.

???

 

[WeaponsCollector]

If I had any gold or guns I'm pretty sure it would be expensive and valuable so without proper compensation, they can both be taken the same way....
From my cold, dead hands.

 

[Cold Steel]

Unless hillary gets in then we're really F$%ked. That's the simple answer.

You mean you think Hillary is our salvation?

How so?

FDR really overstepped his authority with EO 6102, but back then people weren't as willing to question the government. Many people complied and were subsequently screwed. As gun owners we've seen the British adopt registration, then had them taken. Next we saw Canada and Australia adopt registration, then had their guns confiscated. So hopefully we got the message. And much of Australia is wilderness, where people need guns.

Hopefully, we'll be able to resist our enemies because our elected leaders will take whatever power that we the people let them grab.

 

[Vile Shadow]

You mean you think Hillary is our salvation?

How so?

FDR really overstepped his authority with EO 6102, but back then people weren't as willing to question the government. Many people complied and were subsequently screwed. As gun owners we've seen the British adopt registration, then had them taken. Next we saw Canada and Australia adopt registration, then had their guns confiscated. So hopefully we got the message. And much of Australia is wilderness, where people need guns.

Hopefully, we'll be able to resist our enemies because our elected leaders will take whatever power that we the people let them grab.

In the case of Australia, the reason for their confiscation is still alive, unlike the 35 people the POS killed.

 

[sxs]

You mean you think Hillary is our salvation?

How so?
FDR really overstepped his authority with EO 6102, but back then people weren't as willing to question the government. Many people complied and were subsequently screwed. As gun owners we've seen the British adopt registration, then had them taken. Next we saw Canada and Australia adopt registration, then had their guns confiscated. So hopefully we got the message. And much of Australia is wilderness, where people need guns.

Hopefully, we'll be able to resist our enemies because our elected leaders will take whatever power that we the people let them grab.

I think he meant just 1 more year of this crap...unless Hillary gets in then we have that much more time to get F$^cked.

 

[Cold Steel]

So to answer your question.... Yes and no. An executive order is still subject to the scrutiny of the supreme court, just like any other law.

Well, even judicial review is unconstitutional. The founding fathers never intended that courts determine the constitutionality of our laws. The Supreme Court determined that the Bank of the United States was constitutional. Andrew Jackson disagreed and told the courts they could then fund "the Monster" if that was their wont. If one reads Jefferson, Addams and other founders, it's pretty clear Jackson was right and that the Court was wrong. Letting a majority of any small group with highly subjective views determine the constitutionality of any issue is very dangerous. We were very lucky to have won the Second Amendment case where one corrupt vote could have sunk us.

The founders thought constitutionality is self evident; that's why they wrote the Constitution so anyone who could read could understand it.

I think he meant just 1 more year of this crap...unless Hillary gets in then we have that much more time to get F$^cked.

Ah! That makes more sense.

 

[Jim12]

Iirc from ancient history, the entire idea of a "background check" was initially met with great resistance because it was seen as an intrusion on one's privacy and right to anonymity in owning a firearm. Whose business is it, anyway? Further, it was also seen as opening the door to a massive database, ultimately facilitating registration and then confiscation.

As a "compromise", and to light the fire under the metaphorical frog-boiling water, the gun grabbers agreed (then, for the time being ) to a requirement that background check documentation be destroyed and not preserved, eliminating the concern over a registry that could be used for confiscation.

I fear that that critical, well reasoned and justified feature - of destroying the NICS check for those who pass - is going by the wayside, paving the way for a national registry and circumventing that critical feature of the law. I don't trust the b*stard, and every word and phrase he utters needs to be scrutinized.

 

[DaemonAssassin]

Iirc from ancient history, the entire idea of a "background check" was initially met with great resistance because it was seen as an intrusion on one's privacy and right to anonymity in owning a firearm. Whose business is it, anyway? Further, it was also seen as opening the door to a massive database, ultimately facilitating registration and then confiscation.

As a "compromise", and to light the fire under the metaphorical frog-boiling water, the gun grabbers agreed (then, for the time being ) to a requirement that background check documentation be destroyed and not preserved, eliminating the concern over a registry that could be used for confiscation.

I fear that that critical, well reasoned and justified feature - of destroying the NICS check for those who pass - is going by the wayside, paving the way for a national registry and circumventing that critical feature of the law. I don't trust the b*stard, and every word and phrase he utters needs to be scrutinized.

FOPA bans using NICS data or any other data from 4473's to create a national registry of non-NFA firearms.

 

[Alea Jacta Est]

Scrutinizing what he says is a wholesale waste of time.

Like other politicians, especially the Libs (but all of them), they lie for a living.

There is little, if any, truth to be had any more.

There is zero accountability.

They lie with impunity. They act with impunity.

We wring our collective hands...those of us who act as if we cared. The rest Tweet on.

 

[Alea Jacta Est]

FOPA bans using NICS data or any other data from 4473's to create a national registry of non-NFA firearms.

FOPA means jack sh1t to this Administration.

Sorry, but the truth is they just don't give a shit about rule of law.

 

[K31]

I believe he wants to muddy the waters enough with this "business" BS so people are afraid to do FTF transfers.

He wants to keep up gun grabbing/anti-NRA rhetoric along with other Dem politicians so people don't talk about real issues or scrutinize Billary's record on things like Bengazi too closely.

By hiring a bunch more ATF agents, he wants to return us to the bad old days where an agency with not enough to do started actions against people for no wrongdoing.

He also wants to dredge up mythical "technology" solutions to non-problems to disarm the law abiding.

 

[Bikebreath]

So, how do I buy or sell a handgun now? Drop by 1600 Penn. Ave instead of the local MSP?

What a colossal mess!

 

[Jim12]

FOPA bans using NICS data or any other data from 4473's to create a national registry of non-NFA firearms.

But that priceless data is just too useful to the grabbers to let it go to waste. Somebody, somewhere is torturing the language and logic of the. Act to justify its retention in spite of the prohibition. Like everything today, depends on what the meaning of "is" is, right?