Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: Righter-than-Rush
Unless someone can document my conclusion as unfounded, I contend the President, whether through powers of legislation or powers of unilateral decision (executive orders, see declaration of national emergency 9/14/01), may create laws taking away firearms and weapons of any kind, from citizens in all states, without consent or regard for state law. All the President needs is the opportunity. Someone please prove me wrong.
15 posted on 07/04/2008 11:33:17 AM PDT by Righter-than-Rush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]


To: Righter-than-Rush

“Unless someone can document my conclusion as unfounded, I contend the President, whether through powers of legislation or powers of unilateral decision (executive orders, see declaration of national emergency 9/14/01), may create laws taking away firearms and weapons of any kind, from citizens in all states, without consent or regard for state law. All the President needs is the opportunity. Someone please prove me wrong. “

I don’t think it’s a matter of proving you wrong. This scenario - Government seizing power above that for which they have consent from the governed - is exactly what the 2nd Amendment was created to prevent. I’m not sure I know of too many folks who would willingly hand over their firearms during a time of great peril.

I would like to believe our military generally would recognize this as an unlawful order and refuse to comply.

as for Law enforcement, maybe they are dumb enough to try it in New Orleans - but I not so sure they’d try it in most other areas of the country.

So I don’t think we’ll find any way to disprove what you are saying - it’s already illegal - but of course, that didn’t stop the New Orleans travesty, and probably won’t stop big-city police forces from doing the same in an “emergency” in some cases.


17 posted on 07/04/2008 11:53:52 AM PDT by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: Righter-than-Rush

I can prove you right.

Bush issued an Executive Order blocking property of persons determined to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people.

On September 19th, 2006, a lone Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) noted that the 2007 Defense Authorization Act contained a “widely opposed provision to allow the President more control over the National Guard [adopting] changes to the Insurrection Act, which will make it easier for this or any future President to use the military to restore domestic order WITHOUT the consent of the nation’s governors.”

Also in Public Law 109-364 “John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007” states that “the President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of (”refuse” or “fail” in) maintaining public order, “in order to suppress, in any State, any insurrection,domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.”


33 posted on 07/04/2008 11:51:35 PM PDT by endthematrix (Congress, Get Off Your Gas, And Drill!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson