What is the process for battling an EO?

[RevolverRob]

It probably behooves all of us to understand what an Executive Order is and what it can and cannot do:

https://www.heritage.org/political-p...ecutive-orders

The long and short is - absent a federal law allowing them to regulate semi-automatic weapons and large capacity magazines, a president would not have authority to issue an executive order banning them. Worst case scenario is @DanM suggests, since POTUS is empowered to oversee foreign trade, they could ban the importation of firearms via EO.

But currently, no law exists allowing the president to regulate magazines or semi-automatic weapons (NFA weapons, use, but not semi-automatic). Attempts to pass a ban via EO in this way is likely to result in the Supreme Court overturning it, because there is no law allowing the president to regulate such things. And it is certainly not enumerated in that pesky thing called the 'constitution'. Which I know a lot of politicians haven't read, but fortunately, it seems like the bulk of SCOTUS and COA Justices have.

[HCM]

I could have sworn seeing a tweet from him about reclassifying items via EO, like what Trump did with bump stocks... maybe it was a fever dream.

Bump stocks were unique because 1) a part, like an auto sear can be legally defined as a machine gun per the definition in the NFA as passed (legislated) by congress and 2) Bumpstocks were a grey area from the start, they were initially classified as MG, then not MG, then reclassified back to MGs.

Congress has clearly spoken in the NFA - it covers MG, SBR, SBS, AOW and Silencers. To add title 1 firearms such as semi auto rifles or pistols to the NFA would require legislation via congress. It is not within the scope of an EO.

Politicians lie and exaggerate to feed their base what they want to hear all the time. If Title 1 firearms could be re-classified as NFA items that easily Obama would have done it with his pen and phone.

The only real EO concerns I have are restrictions on imports and a re-classification of pistol braces as stocks and even then you could just take the brace off rather than register it and an SBR or AOW.

[wvincent]

DACA is a bad example because it was not a stand alone EO.

DACA is based on the discretionary authority congress provided the executive branch via legislation (The Immigration and Nationality Act) to grant aliens deferred action.

And the power to modify that act still resides with the executive branch, correct?
Yet, SC put the brakes on that modification.

[Lex Luthier]

Not so easy to rescind EO's, look how DACA turned out.

Try this on for size. "Firearm violence is a national health issue, (just like Covid-19), therefore, in the interest of public safety, using my emergency presidential order powers, all fire arms except for LE or the military must be turned in to a secure GOV facility for safekeeping".

Have fun dancing for the Supremes trying to get that rescinded.

Irish Democracy will be the very best that they could hope for in response.
It wouldn't surprise me if the entire ammunition supply for both the Canadian and Mexican armed forces showed up missing shortly thereafter...

I too would wonder if Mackey Sagebrush's pal still has that epic mustache, and I've never even met him.

[HCM]

And the power to modify that act still resides with the executive branch, correct?
Yet, SC put the brakes on that modification.

No, that is not what the SC ruled on. The Act (INA) is legislation / the law passed by congress modification of the act/law itself would require legislation by Congress.

The SC found that the Trump administration abused the discretion congress gave it via the INA via the manner in which it terminated DACA, not that they couldn't terminate DACA. Specifically, the SC ruled the Trump administration terminated DACA in an arbitrary and capricious manner, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

IME most of the Trump administrations early strategic moves on Immigration issues could have been legally implemented but failed because they were rushed and/or poorly executed.

[kitchen's mill]

The guy to watch is Mike Bloomberg, gun control is his issue. He put millions into Biden's campaign, he didn't do it for love. He'll be looking for some payback.

My guess, Bloomberg will keep after the states to enact gun laws.

Biden, if he's still President, will wait until the next chance to flip the Senate in two years, he'll have bigger fish to fry. Like stealing from the energy companies.

How solid are the Republicans on the issue. One big shooting close to the elections and they're liable to cave in, that's how the AWB got through.

Gun owners might be ok for a couple of years depending on the state they live in, might plan accordingly.

[Clusterfrack]

I guessing the Democratic leadership hasn't forgotten the consequences of the Clinton AWB. An executive order for confiscation of guns and magazines isn't going to happen because it's too risky. If Republicans keep the Senate, we're probably safe. If not, it's going to be bad unless SCOTUS makes a ruling.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...reform/488045/

[HeavyDuty]

Good info, thank you - I was a little concerned that they might try a back door route. It doesn’t sound like that is a possibility.

[wvincent]

No, that is not what the SC ruled on. The Act (INA) is legislation / the law passed by congress modification of the act/law itself would require legislation by Congress.

The SC found that the Trump administration abused the discretion congress gave it via the INA via the manner in which it terminated DACA, not that they couldn't terminate DACA. Specifically, the SC ruled the Trump administration terminated DACA in an arbitrary and capricious manner, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

IME most of the Trump administrations early strategic moves on Immigration issues could have been legally implemented but failed because they were rushed and/or poorly executed.

Yeah, I just did a bit of a deep read on that. The admin basically did a sloppy job, according to the SC decision.
Thanks for pointing me in the right direction.

[randyho]

That article is amazing.