Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: MechAg94 on April 24, 2014, 06:47:37 PM
-
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/203747-cornyn-to-holder-will-obama-force-biometric-guns
I saw this article linked today. The main question that came to mind is what law comes anywhere close to allowing Obama to require this via executive order? Why would anyone have to follow it?
Other than that, it seems like a smokescreen Cornyn is throwing up to make himself look better in an election year after he got challenged fairly hard in his primary.
-
I'm trying to figure out how they could even try to enforce such an order
-
Well, it's not like they've paid much attention to the rule of law in the past...
But I don't really see them being that obtuse.
-
IANAL, but it's my understanding that EO's have very limited application outside of Executive Branch employees and those areas (such as foreign relations and trade) where the President has explicit authority; thinking back many decades, even when FDR outlawed gold by EO, it took enabling legislation by the congress first to let him get away with it.
I'm aware of no existing enabling legislation regarding biometrics on firearms.
-
IANAL, but it's my understanding that EO's have very limited application outside of Executive Branch employees and those areas (such as foreign relations and trade) where the President has explicit authority; thinking back many decades, even when FDR outlawed gold by EO, it took enabling legislation by the congress first to let him get away with it.
I'm aware of no existing enabling legislation regarding biometrics on firearms.
Ooooooh! Maybe it means he is going to require ALL executive branch employees to only be able to use biometric firearms in their duties!
-
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/203747-cornyn-to-holder-will-obama-force-biometric-guns
I saw this article linked today. The main question that came to mind is what law comes anywhere close to allowing Obama to require this via executive order? Why would anyone have to follow it?
Other than that, it seems like a smokescreen Cornyn is throwing up to make himself look better in an election year after he got challenged fairly hard in his primary.
Meh, politically grandstanding and everyone here knows it. Obama will likely make some "Hmm, that deserves further study" noises and score some points by making some references to 'making cops safe', 'making children safe', etc. But he's done very well by more or less not touching gun control with a ten foot pole. He's implemented basically the same gun control than any Republican president in the last 30 years. Reagan and Mulford/FOPA/Brady, Bush I and import restrictions, Bush II and import restrictions.
AFAIK, he's only been personally responsible for the South Korea Garand import ban. I do recall they were initially banned from import because we gave them to an allied nation, who would now profit from reselling them to us, which is not kosher under existing import laws. Not that any sane person really cares about that technicality, even if the root of it is not a horrible idea.
Bush I, Bush II, Clinton and Obama all have pulled firearm import bans, because the Constitution basically gives the executive branch near unlimited powers over the border. The SK Garand ban is fully legal and constitutional. It's still a bad idea.
-
IANAL, but it's my understanding that EO's have very limited application outside of Executive Branch employees and those areas (such as foreign relations and trade) where the President has explicit authority; thinking back many decades, even when FDR outlawed gold by EO, it took enabling legislation by the congress first to let him get away with it.
I'm aware of no existing enabling legislation regarding biometrics on firearms.
This. There's a lot of hoopla over executive orders. But EOs technically are only supposed to be operating instructions to the executive branch on how to implement a law or the Constitution. While these can be disconcerting, as there is often a lot of leeway left in interpretation of the Constitution, law and case law, they don't trump any of the above.
Ooooooh! Maybe it means he is going to require ALL executive branch employees to only be able to use biometric firearms in their duties!
I'd support that. Be good to know that their firearms were not functioning while on my property. =D