National Emergency Gun Control

[Vigilant]

Everybody remembers that Louis XVI was king of France at the time of the French Revolution. (Ok, maybe not everyone, but some people do.)To be fair, Churchmouse is the only one that could really say he remembers, since he was there.

No one really remembers that the decisions that created the pressure that culminated in the revolution were made my many predecessors over a long period of time.

Trump's decisions are properly viewed in that context. Has every "national emergency" been an actual, real emergency? Has that definition been diluted over time?

If he goes through with this, that continued dilution will allow for a variety of scenarios to appear more of an "emergency" that needs dealt with by executive power.

My one point of contention.

 

[Ingomike]

Definitely not wrong about that last line. He's doing it because he can, not because it's right. I guess it goes back to the 2016 idea of "burn it all down" that many here cherished.

https://twitter.com/jacklgoldsmith/status/1096454014328324096

A lot of truth in that quote you posted.

MM

 

[miguel]

Declared National Emergencies Under the National Emergencies Act, 1978-2018: https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/NEA Declarations.pdf

 

[indyartisan]

Raise your hand if you think any of your elected representatives will have read the thousand and some odd pages of legalese in the 24 hours they had to digest this new budget proposal.

 

[miguel]

Raise your hand if you think any of your elected representatives will have read the thousand and some odd pages of legalese in the 24 hours they had to digest this new budget proposal.

HAHAHA!!!

She's gonna sign it link the Chamber of Commerce coolie she is.

 

[T.Lex]

Serious question: Isn't that how despotic regimes start? Stack the court with sycophants, then start making laws and the courts stand by and respond...

Well, in my admittedly cursory review of history, I think despotic regimes start in many different ways.

The way you describe - controlling the organs of government that make decisions - is one path to autocracy in democratic republics.

 

[Dead Duck]

I haven't seen this much crap since the Yeager Humping threads.

 

[JettaKnight]

Then should Congress do their job and rescind this law?

MN

That's a bit of a red herring.

Like I said, almost all of those don't involve any significant expenditure, and none have massive infrastructure tied to them. I.e. I believe those aren't in the purview of Congress.


And yes, Congress should do something, but I doubt McConnell, Trump's lap dog, will do anything.

 

[JettaKnight]

HAHAHA!!!

She's gonna sign it [like] the Chamber of Commerce coolie she is.

 

[mrrogers91]

So, does a "national emergency" trump the constitution? What is the definition of a national emergency?

No pun intended.

sure... no pun intended... lol

in all seriousness this idea of just throwing around terms like this makes me very nervous about my rights in the coming years.
time to start caching "ghost" weapons and ammo i think

 

[T.Lex]

Regardless of the legislation, POTUS has executive authority. Generally, that includes the autonomy to deal with emergencies. By most definitions, those are things that you can't really plan for.

 

[patience0830]

Gross. Wholeheartedly disagree.

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

Read the whole sentence, CJ and don't just hear the part that upsets you please.

 

[T.Lex]

Read the whole sentence, CJ and don't just hear the part that upsets you please.

Welcome to INGO, you must be new here.

 

[MarkC]

Raise your hand if you think any of your elected representatives will have read the thousand and some odd pages of legalese in the 24 hours they had to digest this new budget proposal.

Isn't that what they have underpaid and overworked staffers to do for them?

 

[indykid]

I always thought that securing the borders was one of the few things given to the federal government. So if congress won't do it, it should fall on another branch, in this case the executive to secure the borders. Therefore an emergency action to secure the southern border is well within the constitutional provisions.

As for Nancy of Sisco, an emergency ruling on firearms would be unconstitutional, but that has never stopped her in the past.

 

[MarkC]

I always thought that securing the borders was one of the few things given to the federal government. So if congress won't do it, it should fall on another branch, in this case the executive to secure the borders. Therefore an emergency action to secure the southern border is well within the constitutional provisions.

As for Nancy of Sisco, an emergency ruling on firearms would be unconstitutional, but that has never stopped her in the past.

How would you know it is not constitutional until you passed it, enforced it, and finally had a court tell you for certain that it's unconstitutional?

 

[draftsman]

If the policies, handouts and IRS loopholes for illegals were changed fewer of them would want to come here in the first place. Is any party discussing that?

 

[HoughMade]

...Generally, that includes the autonomy to deal with emergencies. By most definitions, those are things that you can't really plan for.

Like, say, not being able to plan for something you campaigned on years ago, haven't done much about in almost 2 years, then when Congress changes hands, picking the "hill to die on", losing and deciding he can spend money allocated elsewhere on whatever he likes?

I get it. No way he could have planned for this.

 

[HoughMade]

If the policies, handouts and IRS loopholes for illegals were changed fewer of them would want to come here in the first place. Is any party discussing that?

Why?

We're too busy cheering Trump for something we would have called Obama a dictator for doing.

 

[BigRed]

Per your beliefs, those "dangerous times" began March 4, 1789.

True.