As you all know there has been a lot of talk about Hillary and guns. As President could she legally write a Executive Order and take guns?

2016-10-17T08:09:47-04:00

This is new to me, has it been talked about before?

Response by LCpl Cody Collins made Oct 17 at 2016 8:28 AM

2016-10-17T08:28:01-04:00

With the apathy level in this country about politics Anything is Possible

Response by CPT Alan Bentson made Oct 17 at 2016 8:31 AM

2016-10-17T08:31:03-04:00

From the recent release of emails by Wikileaks:

Of particular note is an October 4, 2015 email written by Clinton campaign press secretary Brian Fallon, which detailed the campaign’s intent to share with reporters the types of gun control proposals a President Clinton would support. The email stated:

Circling back around on guns as a follow up to the Friday morning discussion: the Today show has indicated they definitely plan to ask bout guns, and so to have the discussion be more of a news event than her previous times discussing guns, we are going to background reporters tonight on a few of the specific proposals she would support as President - universal background checks of course, but also closing the gun show loophole by executive order and imposing manufacturer liability.

Response by SPC James Harsh made Oct 17 at 2016 8:32 AM

2016-10-17T08:32:02-04:00

big money in the senate races to help aid in selecting SCOTUS picks which is the one branch of government that can't be lost to pay to play. We see states banning semi-automatic assault rifles which is a class of firearm only described as a class in the federal assault weapons ban in which semi automatic assault weapons aren't even banned. They are also relatively common amongst firearms owners, in heller vs dc it was ruled that a state cannot ban a class of firearm. We see states getting away with banning a class of firearm though, ones that happen to have picrtures of hillary hanging out with those that do ban firearms as orders not voted for by the people. It is looking like hillary wants to be the woman to take down the evil nra with executive order or at worst through the supreme court, it would be unprecedented. If the SCOTUS said that an individual doesn't have a right to bear arms only the government than it's all over folks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lP3wjxJwlk

Clinton: The Supreme Court is Wrong On The Second Amendment

Response by CPT Alan Bentson made Oct 17 at 2016 8:32 AM

2016-10-17T08:32:38-04:00

Russ Feingold, running for Senate in Wisconsin:

“If there’s still Republican control in Congress, and if Hillary is elected, is there anything she can do to uhh…,” a person asks Feingold within the video. “Well, there might be an executive order,” Feingold responds.

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Oct 17 at 2016 8:33 AM

2016-10-17T08:33:30-04:00

She can write any order she wants. If a lawsuit is brought by a person or organization that has been harmed by the executive order, it will be brought to court. If the court determines it violates or changes the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment, the case will likely move to an appellate court and then may go to the supreme court, to determine if the executive order is constitutional. In 2008, "DC vs Heller" decision made it clear that the right to bear arms was an individual citizen's right, not some vague notion of what a militia constitutes according to what the framers intended.

Response by SSgt James Atkinson made Oct 17 at 2016 9:05 AM

2016-10-17T09:05:58-04:00

It would be an impeachable offense, for which she could/would be rapidly removed from office.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 17 at 2016 9:21 AM

2016-10-17T09:21:18-04:00

Take off the tin hat, we aren't losing our weapons.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 17 at 2016 9:25 AM

2016-10-17T09:25:31-04:00

NO , your GUNS ARE SAFE !!! its about gun control and back ground checks

Response by MSgt James Mullis made Oct 17 at 2016 9:46 AM

2016-10-17T09:46:04-04:00

I don't know if she will or not. However, As President, she could legally write any Executive Order she wants. The ultimate determiner of an executive orders Legality/Constitutionality is the Supreme Court. It can be assumed that once she appoints a fifth Liberal Supreme Court Justice, anything she does will be found "Legal".

Response by Sgt Wayne Wood made Oct 17 at 2016 10:07 AM

2016-10-17T10:07:26-04:00

Response by CPO Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 17 at 2016 10:14 AM

2016-10-17T10:14:20-04:00

While she can attempt to write said Order I doubt it would work. Lets go with simple numbers, Who does she expect to go to war with the Armed population to take away the 300 Million legal guns, with an estimated Trillion rounds of ammo? The Military does not have a Domestic charter, and the National Guard probably would follow their states stance on said order. Now if she did write it understand the courts will be in her favor she will be nominating the Supreme Court Justices (or Trump if he gets in) As it stood till recently it was 50/50 split between Conservative's and Liberals, if she makes it she will have the opportunity to pack it with Liberals and they will give her the green light. Quite frankly she would have to be bat crap insane to do this as it would undoubtedly start another Civil war.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Oct 17 at 2016 10:53 AM

2016-10-17T10:53:24-04:00

EOs are not legal to take precedence over Congress passed laws president signed. Nor can he/she do anything to overturn the Constitution, however, the SCOTUS is the gatekeeper of what is copacetic with the Constitution. Whatever is done and agreed to by the SCOTUS effects us for decades into the future and why she is so dangerous to the nation and the Constitution.

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Oct 17 at 2016 11:42 AM

2016-10-17T11:42:44-04:00

I believe the Great King Leonidas said it best in response to the demand to the Persian Army's that the Spartans surrender their weapons at the Battle of Thermopylae....MOLON LABE!

Response by Cpl Mark McMiller made Oct 17 at 2016 2:40 PM

2016-10-17T14:40:09-04:00

SCOTUS has affirmed the right of citizens to own firearms so a sitting President could not confiscate all of them via executive order. However, a sitting President could, through executive order, do a lot of things that would make life difficult for gun owners, such as drastically limiting what types of firearms or ammunition can be owned; mandating a large tax on the purchase of firearms and/or ammunition which could effectively ban them for everyone but the rich and powerful; or mandating background checks for the purchase of ammunition. This last one has already been enacted in California. So, yes, it does matter who is President.

Response by MSgt Michael Bischoff made Oct 17 at 2016 3:28 PM

2016-10-17T15:28:27-04:00

Never happen or has been discussed, all propaganda by gun/ammo manufacturers to raise tensions and prices!!!

Response by PFC Harry Leuchen made Oct 17 at 2016 9:38 PM

2016-10-17T21:38:08-04:00

I know this doesn't directly answer your question, but here's my two cents as a veteran about the sad state of fun violence in this country:

I am a veteran of the United States Army. I served as a 12B (Combat Engineer) in the 37th Engineer Battalion, part of the illustrious 82nd Airborne Division

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why any civilian needs or wants to own an assault rifle. During OSUT (a form of initial training where Basic and AIT are rolled into one course), we learned that our rifles were deadly weapons, designed solely for killing the enemy on a battlefield. When we trained with our weapons, we had to shoot a "qualification" test. We were presented with forty popup targets, one after another at different distances, from fifty to three hundred meters, all in very quick succession. We had to kill at least twenty three targets to pass the test, but most of us, including those of us who never fired a gun before, easily shot thirty or more targets. All this was in the span of less than two minutes, and we even had to reload once in that time. I don't get why any civilian needs to kill thirty people in two minutes, unless he is deliberately causing carnage and mass death.

The civilian AR15 is just a M-4 carbine by any other name. The only difference is that it does not have burst capacity. That is not nearly as big a difference as the NRA makes it out to be. We never, ever used burst mode in the military, since it wasted ammo, was inaccurate, and generally useless. Besides for that difference, the AR 15 is the exact same as the M4. The M4's features are designed to kill a large number of people in a short amount of time, including a detachable magazine which allows for rapid reloading and a buffer tube and muzzle brake which dampens recoil, so that a shooter can fire off a large number of rounds with minimal affect on accuracy.

All the arguments about " I need my AR 15 for hunting" or "I need my Ar15 for self defense" are entirely ridiculous. The 5.56 Nato round, which the Ar15 uses, is designed to pierce body armor. Which deer wears body armor? And your fantasies about shooting fifteen home invaders at once is just that: a fantasy which will likely never happen. The only real purpose of the AR 15 in American society is to kill large numbers of clubgoers, schoolchildren, or innocent bystanders at a time.

And for those of you who claim that "my Ar15 will protect me from tyranny," guess what, you're wrong. In my time in the military, I saw that no civilian rebellion would ever stand a chance against us. We have M1 Abrams tanks which can survive multiple rocket hits. We have drones which can bomb your house while being controlled by a person a thousand miles away. If worst came to worst, we have nuclear weapons which can quickly bring a seceding city or state into the stone age.

Let's also talk about concealed carry. You are civilians. You are not deployed to a foreign country halfway around the globe. You are not fighting basically an entire for the sake of securing their oil supplies. You are not under constant threat of attack from people defending their homes from foreign invaders.

Therefore, you have no reason to carry a gun in public. Nobody needs to carry a handgun into mcDonald's or into a bank. You are not in a war zone.

And don't give me the bs that concealed carry decreases crime. It has been proven, by STANFORD UNIVERSITY, that concealed carry actually INCREASES violent crime: http://news.stanford.edu/2014/11/14/donohue-guns-study-111414/

Trust me, I used to be an NRA member myself when I was 18. I bought into the propaganda because I was stupid, uninformed, and thought it was fun to play with guns. After joining the military, I learned to treat firearms, especially assault rifles, as tools of death and destruction, something which should be kept out of most civilian hands.

The right wing claims to respect veterans, so they should listen to the words of a former soldier. I trained with assault rifles. I carried an assault rifle as part of my job. I can tell you that the military M-4 and the Ar-15 are nearly identical, and that no civilian needs a weapon designed to kill dozens of people in a matter of minutes.

Right-to-carry gun laws linked to increase in violent crime, Stanford research shows

Stanford research reaffirms that right-to-carry gun laws are connected with an increase in violent crime. This debunks – with the latest empirical evidence – earlier claims that more guns actually lead to less crime.

Response by PO1 Richard Schneider made Oct 30 at 2016 4:36 PM

2016-10-30T16:36:03-04:00

I think the question could be better stated as, If the president issues an illegal EO, can it be enforced?

In a nutshell, while it is uncommon, the executive branch can and has enforced illegal executive actions. Usually by drawing out any and all court challenges to said orders. Occasionally completely ignoring Supreme Court Decisions (as did the founding president of both major parties) .

Now the next question is will the departments overseen by the cabinet attempt to carry out the orders of the executive. That really depends on the level perceived support for the illegal order.

If HRC can convince Homeland Security (guns are a threat to all americans) or HHS (gun violence is a disease) or HUD (no guns in HUD contracted homes) to go along it may take an impeachment (best case) or civil war (worst case) to stop it.