There's a huge difference between using emergency powers to exercise federal powers enumerated in the constitution such as defending the nation's borders and using emergency powers to violate human rights enumerated in the constitution. Not that they care.Syntyr wrote: ↑Fri Feb 15, 2019 11:00 amObama declared 13 National emergencies and 11 of them are still in effect. If they had thought they could get away with it they would have passed the same emergency declaration against the Second Amendment when Obama was in office. And nothing Trump does or does not do is going to dissuade them from doing it in the future.KLB wrote: ↑Fri Feb 15, 2019 10:36 am As much as I'd like to see increased border security, including a wall or other barrier, I fear using an emergency declaration to accomplish that will be a terrible precedent, and I oppose it for that reason.
That said, it's not clear to me how Pelosi's specific threat would work. Would a Democratic president enact gun control or confiscation by executive order based on an emergency declaration? If so, the court's would surely strike that down as being unsupported by legislative authority--for so long as we still have courts in the least interested in retaining our constitutional system. And if the courts no longer want to preserve the constitutional system, the ball game is over one way or the orher.
I will not obey.
It's a moot point. If the swamp creatures can re-classify a bump stock as a MG, they can re-classify a handgun with a barrel less than 16" as a SBR. The same people who caved on bump stocks will cave on short barrels and get as little in return.