National Emergency Gun Control

[Robert Richardson]

Camping Josh, not a reason to excuse behavior, just stating a fact.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Yes, you are correct, it was unacceptable but, with democrats , it was acceptable.

To them. Not us.

To be consistent, we should also find this one unacceptable... and not be okay with it because it's "our team".

 

[Robert Richardson]

That sounds more like an imminent issue... which can be responded to with a different sort of force. He sent people to guard the border once, he can do it again. Spending $8 billion to build something isn't a response to those 30k people.

So how many times do we send troops to the border and how much do we spend for that?
So what is the correct response?

 

[T.Lex]

So how many times do we send troops to the border and how much do we spend for that?
So what is the correct response?

The system is the solution.

If 30k people are really trying to enter the country without permission (they aren't, but let's pretend), then that's a military response. POTUS/CINC responds.

A wall is infrastructure. That's POTUS and Congress working together to figure it out. Lots of legislative skirmishes, over a long period of time.

Trump should take the $1.5B and keep gnawing at that bone to get more. Use it as an election wedge issue.

Maybe he'll still do that. (Some number of the current "emergencies" don't actually require that we do anything about the emergency.)

But if he actually moves toward building it without Congress, then that's an executive power grab.

 

[HoughMade]

Spoken like a true Anti-Trumper.

I've supported Trump in most of the policies he has pursued.

However, declaring a national emergency when he can't get money through legislation the way the Constitution says he must. looks a lot like what dictators do. I can't support Trump on this and still care about the Constitution and the representative republic set forth therein.

Separation of Powers- it's for the good of ALL of us.

...and say what you will about Nancy Pelosi, she never mentioned a national emergency about gun violence until Trump went down this road.

After Sandy Hook, President Obama pushed gun control legislation. It all failed. He did not declare a national emergency when the legislative route failed.

This is a horribly bad idea. One wonders what Trump will do when the courts inevitably strike this down. Will people still support him when he is ignoring both other branches of government? If he does that and I am done with him and hopefully he will have a primary challenge.

 

[T.Lex]

I'm not sure the courts will rule against Trump on this.

That Congress didn't want to spend money on this does not rule out that it is also a national emergency.

That determination, IMHO, is likely to be a purely executive decision. Or nearly so.

My fear is that the courts will say this is properly within the scope of POTUS decisionmaking, even if it is a bad idea. The courts have done that before. "We may disagree with the policy, but affirm the power to pursue it."

Looking at some of the other national emergencies, there's a technical argument that this is one. Granted, none of those others were tested (as far as I know), but do we really then want the courts to create some sort of litmus test for emergencies?

That would then shift this to a constitutional court battle every time a POTUS wants to do it. That doesn't seem like a great idea, either.

 

[patience0830]

Pelosi will find out what the difference between being attacked from without -vs- from within if they attempt to apply the precedent Trump may be setting to the 2nd. I agree this may be a bad idea but I gotta admire the determination to get the job done.

 

[CampingJosh]

I agree this may be a bad idea but I gotta admire the determination to get the job done.

Gross. Wholeheartedly disagree.

You wouldn't say this about anyone else trying to undermine our Constitution or government.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I agree this may be a bad idea but I gotta admire the determination to get the job done.

Found this quote from 2026 after President Harris issued a national emergency proclamation to confiscate all firearms. I mean, from their perspective, it makes sense... getting the job done and all.

 

[GIJEW]

I think it's an 'apples&oranges' comparison. The nature of the 'national emergencies' are fundamentally different and so are the Constitutional issues.


The situation on our southern border IS a threat to our society and national security, and everyone in gov't has a Constitutional obligation to protect national security. Securing the border is part of that. Trump declaring an emergency is a direct result of decades of ongoing inaction and obstruction.

The 'gun crisis' is focused primarily (almost exclusively) in urban neighborhoods that are overrun with criminals and controlled by gangs. per the NIJ, 99.9% of the guns in the country are not abused in crime and mayhem. That solution calls for jobs, social workers, police officers, and DA's who won't make plea deals to lower their case load. Gun bans and confiscation are counter productive and a frontal assault on the 2A and our right to self defense--which everyone in gov't took an oath to uphold and defend.

Pelosi is using trump as an excuse for their agenda, so they can 1)stuff ballot boxes with illegal's votes to gain power2)disarm us so we can't fight about it when they abuse that power to impose a socialist dystopia on us.

 

[Ingomike]

Get the manure spreader dad, gonna need the loader for all the BS in this thread...

The National Emergencies Act of 1976 says the president "has available certain powers that may be exercised in the event that the nation is threatened by crisis, exigency, or emergency circumstances (other than natural disasters, war, or near-war situations)," the Congressional Research Service says.

A senior White House official who spoke on condition of anonymity said such emergencies have been declared 58 times, and 31 are still in effect. The money for the border barrier is simply being "reprogrammed to other uses."

Aparently not the constitutional crisis that is being claimed if it has been used over once a year for over 40 years...

 

[T.Lex]

The situation on our southern border IS a threat to our society and national security, and everyone in gov't has a Constitutional obligation to protect national security. Securing the border is part of that. Trump declaring an emergency is a direct result of decades of ongoing inaction and obstruction.

If that is true - that it is a national emergency - Trump has other (arguably better) tools to address it. He could send troops there to defend it. Nothing wrong with that at all. When the money runs out for national defense, he can request more. If the Dems don't want to give it, then he can argue that they hate the military. Then Trump wins the next election.

That's just one example.

He doesn't NEED to declare a national emergency to secure our border. He just wants to build the wall right now, by any means necessary.

 

[T.Lex]

The National Emergencies Act of 1976 says the president "has available certain powers that may be exercised in the event that the nation is threatened by crisis, exigency, or emergency circumstances (other than natural disasters, war, or near-war situations)," the Congressional Research Service says.

A senior White House official who spoke on condition of anonymity said such emergencies have been declared 58 times, and 31 are still in effect. The money for the border barrier is simply being "reprogrammed to other uses."

At a certain level, that's correct. He's using his pen to get money that Congress doesn't want to give.

Right now, I'm leaning towards the idea that he has the power to do this, but it shouldn't be used. Not like this.

Actually, it is kinda similar to the idea that he can pardon himself. Executive power is executive power.

 

[Ingomike]

If that is true - that it is a national emergency - Trump has other (arguably better) tools to address it. He could send troops there to defend it. Nothing wrong with that at all. When the money runs out for national defense, he can request more. If the Dems don't want to give it, then he can argue that they hate the military. Then Trump wins the next election.

That's just one example.

He doesn't NEED to declare a national emergency to secure our border. He just wants to build the wall right now, by any means necessary.

The country elected DJT, and DJT alone gets to make this decision. The country elected BHO, and he also made decisions, most I did not like.

MM

 

[T.Lex]

The country elected DJT, and DJT alone gets to make this decision. The country elected BHO, and he also made decisions, most I did not like.

Indeed, on that basic level, I think there's a consensus.

 

[GIJEW]

I understand that trump is planning to relocate funds to pay for the wall. If the funds were originally intended for law enforcement or defense, how it a Constitutional crisis for the executive to shuffle the money around? If they take el-chapo's seized assets to replace the moved money and pay for the rest of "the wall" the issue is moot.

Pelosi thinking that entitles them to destroy the 2A is asinine

 

[GIJEW]

If that is true - that it is a national emergency - Trump has other (arguably better) tools to address it. He could send troops there to defend it. Nothing wrong with that at all. When the money runs out for national defense, he can request more. If the Dems don't want to give it, then he can argue that they hate the military. Then Trump wins the next election.

That's just one example.

He doesn't NEED to declare a national emergency to secure our border. He just wants to build the wall right now, by any means necessary.

I've said he should do that time and again, and I wasn't the only one.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Replace "wall" references with confiscation terms.

Yes, he can. The question is "should he?" The justification to make this an "emergency" is weak.

I'd hate to have to point back to this thread in 10 years and say... "huh. That's how it happened."

 

[GIJEW]

Replace "wall" references with confiscation terms.

Yes, he can. The question is "should he?" The justification to make this an "emergency" is weak.

I'd hate to have to point back to this thread in 10 years and say... "huh. That's how it happened."

How does border wall equate to unconstitutional gun confiscation? One is lawful, the other isn't

 

[T.Lex]

I understand that trump is planning to relocate funds to pay for the wall. If the funds were originally intended for law enforcement or defense, how it a Constitutional crisis for the executive to shuffle the money around? If they take el-chapo's seized assets to replace the moved money and pay for the rest of "the wall" the issue is moot.

Pelosi thinking that entitles them to destroy the 2A is asinine

Government accounting is complicated and fundamentally different that private sector. Basically, appropriations are dedicated to something. If Trump raids those appropriations for those things, there's no guarantee that money will then be available for those things.

For instance, the DOD has a huge pension issue. If Trump takes money for that to spend on the Wall, then it likely won't be available for veterans' pensions.

I'm not sure what resources there are out there to help understand the fiscal ramification of something like this. Well, we don't really know yet how Trump is going to use the national emergency powers to re-arrange the financial deck chairs.

Suffice to say that government budgeting is an art an science all to itself.