We'll see what comes of this as Biden was quite obviously testing the waters. I think the big difference is the subject at hand rather than the usual mundane issues that executive orders normally deal with. Obama has stated many times his opinions of the Constitution as not being relevant. I'd rather not fix what isn't broken, in my opinion, because of the "need for action" and an emotional response rather than one based in logic. Let Congress "try" to do their job and leave the executive order process out of this. Even if he attempts to limit magazine size by executive order he's out of line. We'll see...
I feel dumber for having read even part of this gigantic waste of electrons.
Executive orders are not usually about mundane things at all. Sometimes they are, but things like the warrantless wiretapping program, approval of torture, etc, etc, were all executive orders.
This is nothing new, and it is curious that the outrage over use of executive orders relating to constitutional rights was so silent until now.
It's the topic and the media has spread it like wild fires. Americans feel very strongly about any topic related to the second amendment. Most are pretty mundane in comparison.
But the National Firearms Act, the law which placed taxes and heavy restrictions on various weapons including automatic weapons and short barreled rifles and shotguns was heard in the Supreme Court in 1939's United States v Miller.
Miller was charged with transporting a shotbarreled shotgun (barrel length of less than 18 inches) across state lines without having paid the $200 tax required by the National Firearms Act of 1934. The government won that case and the restriction on THAT weapon was held constitutional but what is interesting is the governments argument and the decision of the court.
The government argued four main points and two of them are particularly noteworthy to current discussion relating to forearms restrictions. One being the Second Amendment protects ONLY ownership of MILITARY style weapons and the second that the shotgun in question did NOT meet military specification therefore could be subject to restrictions.
Prior to the Supreme Court hearing the case, the defendant was killed and legal counsel without funding did not show to ardue the case, the government argued the case without rebuttal. The courts decion stated that in absense of any evidence that short barreled shot guns had any millitary use, the could not say they were protected by the 2nd amendment. They also affirmed the militia as being 'all males phisically capable of acting in concert for the sommon defense'. The decision did not specifically state though the the right applied only to said 'militia' (all able males).
Executive orders are not usually about mundane things at all. Sometimes they are, but things like the warrantless wiretapping program, approval of torture, etc, etc, were all executive orders.
This is nothing new, and it is curious that the outrage over use of executive orders relating to constitutional rights was so silent until now.
So the 4th amendment is mundane compared to the second?
Not to me.
So the 4th amendment is mundane compared to the second?
Not to me.
It's the topic and the media has spread it like wild fires. Americans feel very strongly about any topic related to the second amendment. Most examples are pretty mundane in comparison.
Read it. Only affects government agenc(ies). Not the american people/not a public law.
As I stated most-all executive orders are for inner governmental agencies/etc.
A few times the government tried doing non war-like executive orders that affected the citizens by a large amount, such as seize steel mills for governmental use (not even a law) the supreme court blocked it.
You have to look at it this way
1) This would be the first executive order not during wartime that would create or edit such a massive law, especially in the constitution that will affect at least half the population.
2) Power struggle. Everyone in politics is getting worse and worse at wanting power, thus people are seeing it as a anti-republican attack. When in reality it is just the government doing what it does best. Be stupid.
3) Communication. Go back 20 years, and the internet is new, and barely used. News like this didn't travel well/fast, and many people wouldn't comment on it except with their familes. With the internet now, more people know of such possible executive orders and thus comment on it and can cause a commotion.
Now I know what biden said is no where near to executive orders or appealing the 2nd amendment. That is just paranoia hearsay.
And I doubt obama will even really use executive orders for this, because how controversial it will become, and the odds the supreme court will appeal it.
You have to look at it this way
1) This would be the first executive order not during wartime that would create or edit such a massive law, especially in the constitution that will affect at least half the population.
2) Power struggle. Everyone in politics is getting worse and worse at wanting power, thus people are seeing it as a anti-republican attack. When in reality it is just the government doing what it does best. Be stupid.
3) Communication. Go back 20 years, and the internet is new, and barely used. News like this didn't travel well/fast, and many people wouldn't comment on it except with their familes. With the internet now, more people know of such possible executive orders and thus comment on it and can cause a commotion.
Now I know what biden said is no where near to executive orders or appealing the 2nd amendment. That is just paranoia hearsay.
And I doubt obama will even really use executive orders for this, because how controversial it will become, and the odds the supreme court will appeal it.
Correction: a small, irrational, but extremely vocal subset of Americans feel very strongly about it. The majority of Americans may support the 2nd Amendment, but it's of less concern than topics like jobs, the economy, health, etc. it's only those small but noisy few who are so obsessed guns.
Last i checked teh same reaction would happen with any of the major amendments. Especially the 1st.
It just so happens, people either dispise or love the 2nd amendment and so few live in the middle ground.
1.) it's important to remember that there is no executive order here, just wild speculation.
2.) why are you saying that this would be the first one outside of wartime that would be of this nature? Where did you hear that?
I'm fairly ambivalent about it. I think the country would be better off if we were more free to restrict weapons but it's in the Constitution and it isn't going anywhere so we are stuck with it.
The constitution does not prevent the government from restricting weapons, no where does it guarantee that an individual has a right to a particular weapon. The government in the past has restricted access and possession of assault weapons (1990's for example) and fully automatic weapons.
They include improving federal mental health programs and requiring all federal agencies to send information to a national database used for gun background checks.
Other executive actions on the table include ordering the Justice Department to step up prosecutions now almost nonexistent of people caught lying on forms used for background checks.
In addition, Obama could used his recess appointment power to install a director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, a post left vacant for the last six years due to holds by Senate Republicans.
Obama has already said he supports legislation to reinstate a ban on assault weapons, and to outlaw high-capacity ammunition magazines. Obama cant make either measure become reality without congressional action.
That's debatable as the second amendment is written.
That's debatable as the second amendment is written to the contrary. In fact the amendment doesn't restrict any weapons.
No its not, the court have made it clear that the government can choose to regulate the access to certain weapons if it deems so in the name of public safety. The 1990's assault weapons ban is one example. If Congress had chosen it could of made that permanent but did not. Challenges to that law were defeat multiple times.
Nor did I suggest otherwise. I'm simply responding to your claim that "Americans feel very strongly about any topic related to the second amendment ..." Most Americans don't feel that strongly about it, though they may support it.That wasn't biased at all. There's a flip side to every coin. BTW, there are multiple threads about gun opinions elsewhere on the forum.
Yea most people would rather eat than worry about guns. That doesn't mean that preserving all our rights isn't important.
Well I understand that....it doesn't mean that everyone agrees.
Nor did I suggest otherwise. I'm simply responding to your claim that "Americans feel very strongly about any topic related to the second amendment ..." Most Americans don't feel that strongly about it, though they may support it.
Due to public outcry and nothing else, if no one complained and made a stink about it they would keep chipping away until they were banned...keeping quiet about something is giving approval of adding more, if a company reduced wages to all their employees and no one complained wouldn't they be likely to do it again? Same kind of logic applies hereAnd that is understandable. Now the argument has been made that once we ban one weapon, its a short walk to gov't confiscation of all arms. I think that is a really straw man argument. When the gov't in the 1930's restricted fully automatic weapons (partly because of the mob killings (Al Capone)), the same cry rang out. But 80 years later guns are still here.