Page 1 of 1
The Power of Presidential Executive Orders
Posted: Sat Jan 30, 2021 8:41 am
by Bitter Clinger
https://www.uslawshield.com/freedoms-an ... ve-orders/
On April 3, 1933 President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 6102, requiring Americans to surrender their gold (other than gold jewelry, gold coins, and a very small amount of gold bullion) to the government for payment of the then prevailing value of the gold surrendered.
If you could be forced to surrender gold by executive order, is it a stretch to think that guns could go the same way?
Re: The Power of Presidential Executive Orders
Posted: Sat Jan 30, 2021 9:13 am
by Russell
That's fascinating (in a scary way). I'm sure I learned about this in school but don't recall it. I'll have to do some more reading about it and how it somehow managed to get through the supreme court, if there even was a challenge to it.
Re: The Power of Presidential Executive Orders
Posted: Sat Jan 30, 2021 9:19 am
by Tex1961
Gold isn’t a protected constitutional amendment. It doesn’t mean that a sitting presidential executive order can’t or wouldn’t wreck havoc on our rights, but there are a lot more legalities in firearms vs gold.
Re: The Power of Presidential Executive Orders
Posted: Sat Jan 30, 2021 9:50 am
by srothstein
Tex1961 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 9:19 am
Gold isn’t a protected constitutional amendment. It doesn’t mean that a sitting presidential executive order can’t or wouldn’t wreck havoc on our rights, but there are a lot more legalities in firearms vs gold.
Actually, this is 100% allowed by the Constitution for property in general. The reason the gold was allowed (if there was a challenge) was that the Fifth Amendment has more in it than just the right to not testify against yourself. It also contains the clause: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." So mass confiscation of anything can be taken for public use if they pay for it. In FDR's case, since he paid the going rate for gold, it would have been deemed just compensation. If your house is condemned for a roadway, they have to pay market value for it. The only question left on that is what constitutes just compensation.
For firearms, we have two interesting arguments. The first is that possession of firearms is also constitutionally protected. The second is that it must be taken for public use. So, if they took every AR that is in 5.56mm for issue in the Army, they could get away with it legally, I think. That would be a public use. Nothing in the clause requires that the use makes sense. Nothing in the Second says that you have a right to a very specific type of firearm, though I would think they would have to allow more to be made and sold after the military shortage were handled. And the very real question of the use brings up, is removing them for public safety considered a public use? Given the decision in Kelo v. New London, I would not bet against the court saying this is valid.
So, I don't think there could ever be a general forfeiture of all firearms in the US, but I could see them doing it in various steps. The key is that they have to pay just compensation, but we have seen that administrations of both parties will just run the printing presses when they need more money. In my opinion, the only thing that will stop this type of seizure is the threat of political retaliation - anyone who votes for it MUST be voted out or recalled if allowed. Keeping their high paying jobs is the one thing most politicians want more than anything else.
Re: The Power of Presidential Executive Orders
Posted: Sat Jan 30, 2021 11:11 am
by Flightmare
srothstein wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 9:50 am
Tex1961 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 9:19 am
Gold isn’t a protected constitutional amendment. It doesn’t mean that a sitting presidential executive order can’t or wouldn’t wreck havoc on our rights, but there are a lot more legalities in firearms vs gold.
Actually, this is 100% allowed by the Constitution for property in general. The reason the gold was allowed (if there was a challenge) was that the Fifth Amendment has more in it than just the right to not testify against yourself. It also contains the clause: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." So mass confiscation of anything can be taken for public use if they pay for it. In FDR's case, since he paid the going rate for gold, it would have been deemed just compensation. If your house is condemned for a roadway, they have to pay market value for it. The only question left on that is what constitutes just compensation.
For firearms, we have two interesting arguments. The first is that possession of firearms is also constitutionally protected. The second is that it must be taken for public use. So, if they took every AR that is in 5.56mm for issue in the Army, they could get away with it legally, I think. That would be a public use. Nothing in the clause requires that the use makes sense. Nothing in the Second says that you have a right to a very specific type of firearm, though I would think they would have to allow more to be made and sold after the military shortage were handled. And the very real question of the use brings up, is removing them for public safety considered a public use? Given the decision in Kelo v. New London, I would not bet against the court saying this is valid.
So, I don't think there could ever be a general forfeiture of all firearms in the US, but I could see them doing it in various steps. The key is that they have to pay just compensation, but we have seen that administrations of both parties will just run the printing presses when they need more money. In my opinion, the only thing that will stop this type of seizure is the threat of political retaliation - anyone who votes for it MUST be voted out or recalled if allowed. Keeping their high paying jobs is the one thing most politicians want more than anything else.
As we saw with bump stocks, they don't seem to even have to offer compensation at all.
Re: The Power of Presidential Executive Orders
Posted: Sat Jan 30, 2021 3:11 pm
by powerboatr
scary things about presidential EOs
is scotus ruled DACA, an EO was in essence a law and could not be overturned by President Trump.
suit was filed by the democrats to prevent the daca from being stopped.
So now we have gutless repubs, whom should be filing suit after suit to biden admin
the pause on insulin is freaking nuts, as well as the restricting the opioid treatment meds and making it easier for doctors to go back to prescribing opioids.
as far as an EO to take our legally owned property, yes it could be done and they know our lawmakers we have presently would not put up much of a fight because they are out numbered .
we have to keep pressure on and ensure these folks are understanding the common sense has to be brought back and stop the dictator we have now.
Re: The Power of Presidential Executive Orders
Posted: Sat Jan 30, 2021 5:37 pm
by strogg
Flightmare wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 11:11 am
srothstein wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 9:50 am
Tex1961 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 9:19 am
Gold isn’t a protected constitutional amendment. It doesn’t mean that a sitting presidential executive order can’t or wouldn’t wreck havoc on our rights, but there are a lot more legalities in firearms vs gold.
Actually, this is 100% allowed by the Constitution for property in general. The reason the gold was allowed (if there was a challenge) was that the Fifth Amendment has more in it than just the right to not testify against yourself. It also contains the clause: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." So mass confiscation of anything can be taken for public use if they pay for it. In FDR's case, since he paid the going rate for gold, it would have been deemed just compensation. If your house is condemned for a roadway, they have to pay market value for it. The only question left on that is what constitutes just compensation.
For firearms, we have two interesting arguments. The first is that possession of firearms is also constitutionally protected. The second is that it must be taken for public use. So, if they took every AR that is in 5.56mm for issue in the Army, they could get away with it legally, I think. That would be a public use. Nothing in the clause requires that the use makes sense. Nothing in the Second says that you have a right to a very specific type of firearm, though I would think they would have to allow more to be made and sold after the military shortage were handled. And the very real question of the use brings up, is removing them for public safety considered a public use? Given the decision in Kelo v. New London, I would not bet against the court saying this is valid.
So, I don't think there could ever be a general forfeiture of all firearms in the US, but I could see them doing it in various steps. The key is that they have to pay just compensation, but we have seen that administrations of both parties will just run the printing presses when they need more money. In my opinion, the only thing that will stop this type of seizure is the threat of political retaliation - anyone who votes for it MUST be voted out or recalled if allowed. Keeping their high paying jobs is the one thing most politicians want more than anything else.
As we saw with bump stocks, they don't seem to even have to offer compensation at all.
The bump stock thing is a bit different. No laws were changed or enacted. All the ATF did as a law enforcement agency was announce to the general public how they would enforce current gun laws. Presumably, they have the backing of the DOJ to indict all who are arrested. Whether bump stocks are and were illegal to begin with is still up in the air. The closest thing we have to case law is up for a 10th circuit en banc hearing at some point. Until then, who knows if it's actually illegal. The same thing goes with shouldering an arm brace. Ultimately, we American plebes are not afraid of breaking the law as much as afraid of what the ATF/DOJ will do to us if we don't live by their interpretation of the law.
So back onto the topic, if Biden ends up signing such a drastic EO, it will certainly be sent to SCOTUS for review before being official. At such time, we shall pray for SCOTUS to hear it and shoot it down. As srothstein said, it is not just the 2nd amendment at risk here if this happens.
Re: The Power of Presidential Executive Orders
Posted: Sat Jan 30, 2021 9:22 pm
by KBCraig
Flightmare wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 11:11 am
srothstein wrote: ↑Sat Jan 30, 2021 9:50 am
So, I don't think there could ever be a general forfeiture of all firearms in the US, but I could see them doing it in various steps. The key is that they have to pay just compensation...
As we saw with bump stocks, they don't seem to even have to offer compensation at all.
Here's One Weird Trick: if something becomes contraband to own or possess, whether by statute or EO or the CFR rulemaking process, that thing becomes contraband. Seized contraband doesn't have to be compensated.
So, if a thing banned by Agency XYZ's published Rule is seized when it's discovered, there is no compensation due.