Overturning a Weapons Ban?

[rhodesbe]

What are the prospects of invalidating an Executive Order to ban weapons?

If I understand 7th grade civics, it takes either:

a) the voted objection of 2/3rds majority of combined houses in Congress (they recently did this to overturn BHO's end to federal pay increases)
b) Supreme Court Constitutional Judicial Review (albiet this is not a Constitution power itself, and has only been used once or twice with effect)

 

[Glocktogo]

SCOTUS review if it fall outside the scope of an EO. EO's cannot be used to make law, only to clarify or interpret existing law IIRC.

 

[rhodesbe]

SCOTUS review if it fall outside the scope of an EO. EO's cannot be used to make law, only to clarify or interpret existing law IIRC.

I could be really wrong on this, but neither of your answers seem correct.

Are you suggesting the Supreme Court can only overturn an Executive Order on a technicality, but not a direct challenge itself?

Also, a Weapons Ban would serve to clarify the 2nd Amendment (in some convoluted way) to our political parties, correct?

 

[Glocktogo]

I could be really wrong on this, but neither of your answers seem correct.

Are you suggesting the Supreme Court can only overturn an Executive Order on a technicality, but not a direct challenge itself?

Also, a Weapons Ban would serve to clarify the 2nd Amendment (in some convoluted way) to our political parties, correct?

I believe a court challenge would require merit to proceed and be heard. Eithe a constiutional or procedural issue would need to be raised.

 

[SMS]

A federal court can block the actions from being executed by whatever federal agency is being directed to take said action in the EO.

For example. An EO can't say "All Semi-auto's are hereby banned"....but, and this is a stretch, the EO could direct the Justice Department to investigate and sieze xxx brand firearms if any are found to violate the sporting purpose clause in the NFA" or whatever. Supposing Justice undertakes those actions, an injunction can be placed on that action pending further legal action.

Folks need to get educated about EO's and how they work before getting all nuts about it (like Yeager did today).

 

[WTJ]

A federal court can block the actions from being executed by whatever federal agency is being directed to take said action in the EO.

For example. An EO can't say "All Semi-auto's are hereby banned"....but, and this is a stretch, the EO could direct the Justice Department to investigate and sieze xxx brand firearms if any are found to violate the sporting purpose clause in the NFA" or whatever. Supposing Justice undertakes those actions, an injunction can be placed on that action pending further legal action.

Folks need to get educated about EO's and how they work before getting all nuts about it (like Yeager did today).

No issue with the education angle. The EO is valid only if it 'clarifies' a existing law per a '52 SCOTUS ruling. As this EO has the intent to infringe on the right of the people as to the Second Amendment, I suspect it would get an almost immediate halt from one of the more Constitutionally intelligent federal courts. I sure as hell ain't counting on it after watching the last 30 years of destruction.

Bidoh should be immediately impeached as a domestic enemy of the US Constitution, as should anyone who agrees to implementation.

Methinks Hollywood caused this with that revisionist historical movie thats up for all the Oscar nominations. I am frightened for my country and its freedoms, more so now than ever.

 

[TJay74]

The SCOTUS has already ruled on this in the past, Roosevelt tried to use a EO to force steel mills to stop general production and force them to provide for the war effort. SCOTUS declared that a EO can only be used to enforce a law on the books and cant be used to create a new law without going thru regular methods.

 

[ekdkdk1]

But as justice Robert said. the federal government has the right to tax ANYTHING. so they do not have to ban guns. just slap a 200.00 dollar a year tax stamp per weapon they deem you should not have. nice and legal. i am still trying to figure out how much this obamacare is going to cost. constitution <--- is a joke to our current president and congress..

 

[WTJ]

But as justice Robert said. the federal government has the right to tax ANYTHING. so they do not have to ban guns. just slap a 200.00 dollar a year tax stamp per weapon they deem you should not have. nice and legal. i am still trying to figure out how much this obamacare is going to cost. constitution <--- is a joke to our current president and congress..

Well, I would have to go check, but IIRC a tax as a means of a prohibition is also extralegal/unconstitutional also, regardless of what that Commie said.

 

[R. Johnson]

Well, I would have to go check, but IIRC a tax as a means of a prohibition is also extralegal/unconstitutional also, regardless of what that Commie said.

To tax the exercise of the second amendment would be like a poll tax, am I correct? That was shot all to pieces decades ago.