TexasCHLforum.com

couzin wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

couzin wrote:While EOs can actually change the direction of a current Law or Statute that an agency follows - they are not supposed to do so unless Congress revisits the actual Law and modifies it in accordance with introduced legislation.

Yes, you are subject to executive orders when congress enacts legislation that includes language authorizing the president to amplify the scope of said legislation.

You do read all of the legislation passed by congress, don't you?

Anygunanywhere

Yep - I do - but you didn't read all of my text (emphasis mine above). BTW - here are the running totals of EOs by President:

GW Bush 268, so far
Clinton 363
G. Bush 165
Reagan 380
Carter 319
Ford 168
Nixon 345
Johnson 323
Kennedy 213
Eisenhower 481
Truman 893
FD Roosevelt 3,466

couzin wrote:

KBCraig wrote:Instead, I expect the new administration to completely ignore the Constitution and the legislative process, and enact sweeping changes by executive fiat. For precedent, they need look no further than George W. Bush and his prolific use of executive orders and "signing statements".

We won't be subject to an Executive Order. Presidential Executive Orders are generally used to direct federal agencies and officials in their execution of congressionally established laws or policies (State Governors can also make Executive Orders that affect a State's agencies). While EOs can actually change the direction of a current Law or Statute that an agency follows - they are not supposed to do so unless Congress revisits the actual Law and modifies it in accordance with introduced legislation - however, most agencies just accept the EO and do what they can to comply (many are just flat ignored). Congress can also over-ride the EO and make it null. In addition to Congressional powers, EOs can be challenged in court, usually on the grounds that the EO exceeds the original contitutional power given to the President (or Governor). Harry Truman had his EO which seized the steel mills during a labor issue overturned because neither the Constitution or any Law nor Statute authorized the President to seize private property.

However - even though we will not see an EO that impacts 2A directly - we might see legislation that brings back the AWB, and has as a component of that bill the increase in Federal taxes on firearms and ammunition along with other 'goodies'. Just think, a box of #9 shells for $7.50 but added taxes of $22.00. Yep - that would keep me off the range. SS and retirement pay doesn't go that far.

pdubyoo wrote:
When we, as responsible gun owners are discussing this issue with "others", we need to be careful to be non-emotional about it. Cool heads, wisdom and facts are key, in my opinion.

FlynJay wrote:
We really are fighting the same battle: reducing crime. Antis think removing the gun will reduce crime - we know this is not true by looking at other societies that have gone down that road unsuccessfully. But when we argue with them we look soft on crime, not good.