What enabling act or constitutional power of the presidency would any such order be based on? I have a really hard time believing that a court would let stand an executive order so sweeping that isn't based on something pretty concrete.

 

This points to Article II, Sections 1 and 3 as the 'source' of authority for EOs.

 

How can an executive order be binding to a private citizen.? - Yahoo! Answers

We agree if you're talking about the Walmart example.

 

We can be but I'd like to take it even further. What would any executive order regarding gun control be based on?

We can be but I'd like to take it even further. What would any executive order regarding gun control be based on?

 

 

I assume you mean what law or EO in the past has been passed and accepted that will allow this to pass the test, correct?

I assume you mean what law or EO in the past has been passed and accepted that will allow this to pass the test, correct?

 

Right.

What would be the nature of the executive order he would issue?

 

DING DING DING, We have a winner. Rand doesn't know what the executive orders are or what ones are being contemplated. How about we wait and see what they are before we call him King George.The ones I have heard about relate to record keeping and prosecutions for violating existing laws. I'll have to wait and see what form the record keeping takes. It is well within executive branch discretion to order the Justice Department to land on violations of existing laws with both feet.

I found this list of existing EOs that have been in place for a long time.

 

 

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.

 

 

THE EXECUTIVE ORDER

From other - mostly forum based (this is a popular subject it appears) - sources.

 

I am just presenting - not claiming accuracy.

 

 

"An executive order must either exercise a constitutional power of the President, or a statutory power enacted by Congress. That's it. "

 

"Correct, however they are trying to push the boundaries. They have only given us an idea of what he is going to do.

 

By definition and EO can not make things illegal."

 

"Executive orders are limited by Article II of the constitution to the Executive branch. How congress allows that to be implimented (sic) is something else. "

 

"Judiciary as well. If a private citizen or company is affected by an executive order, and challenges it in court, then Congress isn't the one to hold him, the judiciary is.

Congress can impeach or attempt to restrain by withholding funds, or in the case of the Senate refusing to confirm appointments. "

 

Here is a link to a more formal write up.

 

Understanding executive orders and the powers they grant | Votetocracy

 

It is concerning. The enforcement of EOs would like fall to the standing military - as it did in WWII for the internment camps.

 

The abuse potential for EOs is pretty high it seems.

EO 9066

 

We knew it happened and was shameful. Did not realize it was due an EO...

 

Executive Order 9066 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just read through a post that Clyde linked to in the New York ban thread that was helpful on the kinds of things that might be accomplished through executive order (I've included what I believe to be the legal basis for each one in parenthesis, but I don't have a source for those):

 

- limits on new gun imports from overseas (President has a lot of authority over non-treaty international agreements)

- compelling federal agencies to better share mental health records (president is head of executive agencies per constitutional mandate)

- strengthen penalties on existing laws such as those for lying on background checks (president charged with enforcement of pre-existing laws by Congressional mandate)

- increase prosecutions of those purchasing guns illegally (not certain here, but there is likely a Congressional mandate on prosecution of an existing federal crime)

- background checks for employees of gun dealers (federal oversight of gun dealers through Congressional mandate)

- notification to federal agencies if someone is denied gun sale due to mental health restrictions (not sure here but again there's already some oversight of weapons dealers through existing Congressional mandate)

 

I'm sure there are more.

 

It is very difficult for a president to create law through executive order but he can very much affect some changes in existing law through the use of presidential power.

I've never really liked the idea of Executive Order's at all. The whole point of the Balance of Powers that was established by our founding fathers when our government was created was to make sure no branch of government grew too powerful. In essense, it feels like the Executive branch wants to by-pass Congress to create laws that otherwise would be shut down. I wouldn't mind if we did away with EO's completely but that is unlikely given our day and age unless the political minds out there start changing their thinking and that would require the american people to pay more attention to what is going on in our society as well (which is hard enough as it is).

Someone who follows it closer can correct me but I get the sense that current laws are often not enforced. If that is correct and the EO strenghtens the enforcement of current laws, that's a good thing, isn't it? Not sure how anyone could disagree with that or challenge it. As others have said, I guess we'll have to wait and see what it involves. My guess it will be reviewed very carefully before issuance as you just know some powerful lobbies are waiting to pounce.

No more foreign ammo, no more foreign guns, no more foreign magazines.

 

Basically installing an AWB by raising the price on everything.

 

All you sporting guys out there...that means no more high end shotguns and rifles....

Regarding my belief that the 2nd amendment doesn't mean any and all weapons are constitutionally protected , this statement from Justice Scalia in Columbua v Heller would seem to support my thinking:

 

3. The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. We do not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms. (54-55) Also, the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned. (55)

 

District of Columbia v. Heller: Scalia’s Majority Opinion - By Ed Whelan - Bench Memos - National Review Online

Regarding my belief that the 2nd amendment doesn't mean any and all weapons are constitutionally protected , this statement from Justice Scalia in Columbua v Heller would seem to support my thinking:

 

3. The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. We do not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms. (54-55) Also, the sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned. (55)

 

District of Columbia v. Heller: Scalia’s Majority Opinion - By Ed Whelan - Bench Memos - National Review Online

 

I agree that this opinion seems to fit your's well in this 5-4 decision. I also believe that opinion was overturned by another case in 2009 in DC and you are now allowed to own a handgun in DC limits. It was overturned due to it being found Unconstititional to take that right away completely, so you are now allowed to own a handgun, but it requires over $350 of licenses and fees. Basically, they are still enforcing gun control through heightened prices. It is doing really well for their violent crime rate, much like Chicago.

I agree that this opinion seems to fit your's well in this 5-4 decision. I also believe that opinion was overturned by another case in 2009 in DC and you are now allowed to own a handgun in DC limits. It was overturned due to it being found Unconstititional to take that right away completely, so you are now allowed to own a handgun, but it requires over $350 of licenses and fees. Basically, they are still enforcing gun control through heightened prices. It is doing really well for their violent crime rate, much like Chicago.

 

You are correct that the handgun ban was overturned. My point centers around the comment that not all guns are protected.