Posted on Dec 14, 2015
Does The Connecticut Governor's Executive Order on Guns violate the Constitution
4.67K
42
23
3
3
0
Does his Executive Order violate your Constitutional rights to Due Process by placing you on a list and taking away your 2nd Amendment Rights since you have not been accused or convicted of a crime? If so when will law suits be filed?
Posted in these groups: 
Constitution
Constitution
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 5
5
5
0
Trey Gowdy questions DHS official, No Fly List
Trey Gowdy questions DHS official, No Fly List.
(5)
(0)
PO2 Mark Saffell
Interesting how none of the left that wants to restrict gun rights has chimed in on this question.
(1)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
PO2 Mark Saffell - In all probability, she was the best they had. But, as we have seen with the Democrat presumptive presidential nominee, stonewalling works.
(2)
(0)
PO2 Mark Saffell
I saw she replied to a question, I don't have that Data with me and it was a direct question for the reason she was being questioned. Who comes to testify before Congress on a subject without the information she knows they are going to ask her about???? That's just crazy. Like going before an IRS Audit without any receipts.
(1)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
PO2 Mark Saffell - He personally didn't pick her being she works for the head of DHS. Not sure why she came there unable to answer some of the more softball questions. That's an embarrassment in the same order as taking a Soldier to the promotion board. Before we get in, they know everything, get inside in front of the SNCO's and they forgot it all, can barely tell them who they are.No matter what either she was failed by her superiors, or she flat out didn't care and is resigned to look stupid on television.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
First of all, "Executive Orders" **ONLY** apply to employees and agents of the Executive Branch of that particular unit of government. Thus, they are NOT laws, and have no power over those NOT employed or empowered by the Executive Branch of that government. There is a reason why Executives do NOT make laws; laws are made by the LEGISLATIVE Branch of government. "Checks & Balances" or "Separation of Powers." That is why we have THREE branches of government-- so no one branch can assume supreme power over the electorate.
Secondly, there is plenty of case law that states that no state government can pass laws that violate the US Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land. That is why we now see that it is *possible* to possess firearms in D.C., and why Illinois now issues concealed carry permits to its residents. Why state governments continue to think they can subvert Constitutionally guaranteed rights is something that will always puzzle me. Have our state executives forgotten how our systems of laws and government work? Or have they never LEARNED them due to the recent dumbing-down of American public school curricula (ie, "Common Core.")
Thirdly, Reality strikes. The sheer amount of logistics that would be required to confiscate firearms is dizzying. You would also have to either get local law enforcement to break their oaths to the Constitution, or overpower them in order to confiscate firearms. Then there comes the issue of knocking on doors, demanding firearms be turned over by law-abiding citizens. Who is going to volunteer for THAT? NOT me! We've seen in Connecticut that county sheriffs have refused to enforce registration and/or confiscation. It's good to see there are Oathkeepers up North! Citizens also have refused to register or turn-in firearms. So there it is; where legal theory meets Reality.
Secondly, there is plenty of case law that states that no state government can pass laws that violate the US Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land. That is why we now see that it is *possible* to possess firearms in D.C., and why Illinois now issues concealed carry permits to its residents. Why state governments continue to think they can subvert Constitutionally guaranteed rights is something that will always puzzle me. Have our state executives forgotten how our systems of laws and government work? Or have they never LEARNED them due to the recent dumbing-down of American public school curricula (ie, "Common Core.")
Thirdly, Reality strikes. The sheer amount of logistics that would be required to confiscate firearms is dizzying. You would also have to either get local law enforcement to break their oaths to the Constitution, or overpower them in order to confiscate firearms. Then there comes the issue of knocking on doors, demanding firearms be turned over by law-abiding citizens. Who is going to volunteer for THAT? NOT me! We've seen in Connecticut that county sheriffs have refused to enforce registration and/or confiscation. It's good to see there are Oathkeepers up North! Citizens also have refused to register or turn-in firearms. So there it is; where legal theory meets Reality.
(2)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
SSG(P) (Join to see) It doesn't and I didn't say they are. I said they could be used in Absence of and to Clarify. But saying that they only apply to employees and agents of the Executive Branch is incorrect. EO's effect can be much more broad than that.
(0)
(0)
SSG(P) (Join to see)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS - So they are NOT law, yet can be used like laws? Unconstitutional orders are still illegal, no matter who issues them.
Additionally, the 10th Amendment applies:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Thus, just because a law doesn't exist does NOT give the government jurisdiction over it. The rights belong to the states or The People. So by Constitutional standards, Executive Orders have no jurisdiction over subjects not enumerated by the Constitution.
Additionally, the 10th Amendment applies:
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Thus, just because a law doesn't exist does NOT give the government jurisdiction over it. The rights belong to the states or The People. So by Constitutional standards, Executive Orders have no jurisdiction over subjects not enumerated by the Constitution.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
SSG(P) (Join to see) - You need to read up on what Executive Orders are, and what the scope of their Power is. No one is calling them Law. They aren't. They have strict confines which I have TWICE defined (Absence of Law, Clarify existing Law).
Executive Orders have existed and have been used since George Washington. Notable examples include the UCMJ, which though it is mandated by Art 1 (Legislative Power), it is actually WRITTEN via Executive Order, and has the Force of Law. The CSA (Legislation) is another example. Though the Law itself is defined by Congress, the Schedule (where each drug falls) is defined by Executive Order. The President has WIDE latitude in CLARIFYING existing law through the delegated Power of Congress.
Your initial statements are flawed because you don't understand the purpose of Executive Orders within our system.
Congress CANNOT foresee everything that needs to be done Administrative, Operationally, nor Logistically within the Executive Branch, nor do they attempt to. Therefore the Law they create is the FRAMEWORK (Confines) which the Executive must operate within. He uses EO's to clarify that framework, must like the military uses Regulations and Orders to clarify intent at lower levels. Just like an Order from a SSG to a PFC has the Full Force of Law when given, so does an EO when it is signed as long as it does not violate an existing Law (hence Absence and Clarify).
Executive Orders have existed and have been used since George Washington. Notable examples include the UCMJ, which though it is mandated by Art 1 (Legislative Power), it is actually WRITTEN via Executive Order, and has the Force of Law. The CSA (Legislation) is another example. Though the Law itself is defined by Congress, the Schedule (where each drug falls) is defined by Executive Order. The President has WIDE latitude in CLARIFYING existing law through the delegated Power of Congress.
Your initial statements are flawed because you don't understand the purpose of Executive Orders within our system.
Congress CANNOT foresee everything that needs to be done Administrative, Operationally, nor Logistically within the Executive Branch, nor do they attempt to. Therefore the Law they create is the FRAMEWORK (Confines) which the Executive must operate within. He uses EO's to clarify that framework, must like the military uses Regulations and Orders to clarify intent at lower levels. Just like an Order from a SSG to a PFC has the Full Force of Law when given, so does an EO when it is signed as long as it does not violate an existing Law (hence Absence and Clarify).
(0)
(0)
PO2 Mark Saffell
My question seems to have done what I hoped. Open discussion about the legality of this EO. My opinion is that it violates your constitutional rights to Due Process and is therefore unconstitutional for a Governor or The President to issue an EO that takes away your 2nd amendment rights simply because your on a list and have not been charged with or convicted of a crime.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google