Widder, SASS #59054 Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 (edited) Fox News reported this morning that the Prez is gonna initiate an executive order that requires ALL gun transfers have a background check...... even among private owners. If this is so, does this mean that every time a firearm is used in Hollywood, a background check must be initiated in order for that firearm to be handled by anyone working with that firearm? I think the NRA should pursue this requirement. It would help keep guns out of the hands of the 'Baldwins' in Hollywood. ..........Widder Edited March 14 by Widder, SASS #59054 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshal Dan Troop 70448 Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 3 minutes ago, Widder, SASS #59054 said: Fox News reported this morning that the Prez is gonna initiate an executive order that requires ALL gun transfers have a background check...... even among private owners. If this is so, does this mean that every time a firearm is used in Hollywood, a background check must be initiated in order for that firearm to be handled by anyone working with that firearm? I think the NRA should pursue this requirement. It would help keep guns out of the hands of the 'Baldwins' in Hollywood. ..........Widder And his son, Hunter. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-BAR #18287 Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 Executive Orders apply only to Federal employees in the Executive branch...the President's direct subordinates. Otherwise we have a dictatorship. I wish reporters had taken a Civics class. 5 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rye Miles #13621 Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 I got news for this fool, he can't do an executive order on the Second Amendment otherwise like J-Bar said, We'd be in a dictatorship. This guy doesn't know his %^$ from a hole in the ground! 8 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Shoer 27979 Posted March 14 Share Posted March 14 2 hours ago, J-BAR #18287 said: Executive Orders apply only to Federal employees in the Executive branch...the President's direct subordinates. Otherwise we have a dictatorship. I wish reporters had taken a Civics class. Thank you for the way you said that. I would have just said he can't, I just know executive order don't mean a dam thing 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Bascomb, SASS # 47,494 Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 Any Executive Order affecting a constitutionally protected right is, on its face, unconstitutional. I wish someone in Congress would point that out. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Riot, SASS #13748 Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 (edited) Too bad Presidents don’t get civics lessons as well. Edited March 15 by Pat Riot, SASS #13748 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texas Lizard Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 6 minutes ago, Pat Riot, SASS #13748 said: Too bad Presidents don’t get civics lessons as well. At this point he could not remember them... Texas Lizard 2 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt. James H. Callahan Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 31 minutes ago, Bad Bascomb, SASS # 47,494 said: Any Executive Order affecting a constitutionally protected right is, on its face, unconstitutional. I wish someone in Congress would point that out. If we could get rid of all the laws that are unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment alone we could whittle 'em down considerably! Not to mention the Second. JHC 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdeacon Joe Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 Someone needs to explain to him what separation of powers means. And what the Constitution does. "Constitutional rights may not be infringed simply because the majority of the people choose that they be." (Westbrook v. Mihaly 2 C3d 756) and "The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." : Robert H. Jackson, US Supreme Court Justice West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) 3 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abilene Slim SASS 81783 Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 Executive orders are mostly PR, meant to give the appearance of acting on an issue. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watab kid Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 i must be really in the dark , i thought every gun sale by licensed dealers is already required to have this check , so only private sales will be affected - i wonder just how many of the gangbangers really care he said it was illegal ? never have before 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sassnetguy50 Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 10 hours ago, J-BAR #18287 said: Executive Orders apply only to Federal employees in the Executive branch...the President's direct subordinates. Otherwise we have a dictatorship. I wish reporters had taken a Civics class. Civics class was decades ago. Being the ATF is under the Executive branch, does the executive order have athority to mandate the agency to specific actions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Riot, SASS #13748 Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 5 hours ago, sassnetguy50 said: Civics class was decades ago. Being the ATF is under the Executive branch, does the executive order have athority to mandate the agency to specific actions? The states dictate the sale and transfer of guns within their state. Once a gun is sold to an individual the Interstate Commerce control is removed from the equation. 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kloehr Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 The actual order: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2023/03/14/executive-order-on-reducing-gun-violence-and-making-our-communities-safer/ 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rye Miles #13621 Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 In Ohio we can sell a firearm to another resident. All they have to show me is their current DL or State ID. I don't see where this affects this at all unless I'm missing something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chantry Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 Here is a write up on Biden's executive orders: https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/03/bidens-gun-executive-order-literally-doesnt-change-anything/ IIRC ANY executive order can only address existing laws and can not create new law. Of course that doesn't prevent presidents from either party from pushing the limits of what they can and can not do and it often ends up in the courts to be resolved. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Badly Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 We said don't make new laws, enforce the laws already on the books. Looks like that is what he is doing. After reading the text of the order I saw nothing restricting individual to individual sales. Unless you sell enough to need an FFL. The Supreme court is the ultimate check on restricting infringement of our 2nd amendment rights and they have done a fine job. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dantankerous Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 As the fans at college football games have chanted... 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgavin Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 The Federal drug laws come to mind. By definition, these should also be under State direction, but they are not. Today, various states choose to ignore them, but I figure if somebody really want to pursue it, they could bring Federal pot law charges if they want to do so. Dictatorship or not, one does not have a whole lot of choice when the "authorities" are at your door with a warrant to bust in. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Riot, SASS #13748 Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 I have a grand idea for making everyone safer. Actually keep criminals in prison. 3 strikes for felonies, not 20. If there was actual punishment and or actual rehabilitation that might help as well. Who am I kidding. The justice corporation can’t have that. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PowderRiverCowboy Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 (edited) Illegal EO ? Yes. If we had a Congress / House that actually upheld their oaths , He should be impeached for that . Period Here Lies the problem with the 2A community , to many we are not organized and well labeled as terrorists if we do . We cant trust your buddy next to you to stand by you . And one guy or a few its been proven time and again will be left by us when Feds stop by . The left isnt even shy about voiding the 2A " they state they have Nukes , F15's and will take your scary AR . And what did we do ?? We cant have a rifle but we can send missiles to Granny in Ukraine ? You cant do a "protest march " with Billy Bob LARPING with 20k in gear that he bought to be cool , that is what they will bring up in the media every damn time . You Cant reason with a group that sought to fire you, ban you from places for not obeying their wishes . Edited March 15 by PowderRiverCowboy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rye Miles #13621 Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 1 hour ago, Mister Badly said: We said don't make new laws, enforce the laws already on the books. Looks like that is what he is doing. After reading the text of the order I saw nothing restricting individual to individual sales. Unless you sell enough to need an FFL. The Supreme court is the ultimate check on restricting infringement of our 2nd amendment rights and they have done a fine job. So another words this EX Order by this dumb fool is actually meaningless and it's just him pandering to antigunners for future votes! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PowderRiverCowboy Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 (edited) 1 hour ago, Mister Badly said: We said don't make new laws, enforce the laws already on the books. Looks like that is what he is doing. After reading the text of the order I saw nothing restricting individual to individual sales. Unless you sell enough to need an FFL. The Supreme court is the ultimate check on restricting infringement of our 2nd amendment rights and they have done a fine job. The mere reason for this post suggests the Supreme Court has not done a fine job otherwise we wouldn't have this post . Edited March 15 by PowderRiverCowboy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rip Snorter Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 Generally, not the greatest fan of the Supremes, but in fairness, it takes time for issues to become cases and climb through lower courts to reach them. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cypress Sun Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 2 hours ago, Pat Riot, SASS #13748 said: I have a grand idea for making everyone safer. Actually keep criminals in prison. 3 strikes for felonies, not 20. If there was actual punishment and or actual rehabilitation that might help as well. Who am I kidding. The justice corporation can’t have that. There's no money in keeping people in prison. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texas Joker Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 3 hours ago, Rip Snorter said: Generally, not the greatest fan of the Supremes, but in fairness, it takes time for issues to become cases and climb through lower courts to reach them. 1934.....nfa 1968.....gca 1986...fopa 1993... Brady 1994... awb Plenty of time for cases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rip Snorter Posted March 15 Share Posted March 15 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Texas Joker said: 1934.....nfa 1968.....gca 1986...fopa 1993... Brady 1994... awb Plenty of time for cases. Obviously, and several of the reasons for my opening statement. I was referring to Brandon's latest attempt to Rule by Decree. Edited March 15 by Rip Snorter 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.