Poch Peralta

Freelance Writer / Blogger,


This conversation is closed.

Do you agree with these new Executive Orders that Will Change Who Can Buy Guns? Or should the Executive Order itself be amended?

'The White House issued two executive actions on Friday that aim to beef up background checks for would-be gun buyers and keep the weapons away from those at risk of harming themselves or others.

'The first order, proposed by the Department of Justice, more clearly defines who cannot possess a handgun under federal law due to mental health issues.

'The second executive action concerns privacy laws associated with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act...'
see details of the EOs here

  • thumb
    Jan 8 2014: Poch, The real question here is not if I agree or disagree with Executive Orders about guns ... the real question is about Executive Orders themselves.

    Originally EO were: "United States Presidents issue executive orders to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the federal government itself."

    While others say: are made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress which explicitly delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation).

    I would tend to agree with the first. If the president makes a new agency (32 czars) then they should be funded from the Executive budget as they were not voted on or funded by Congress and included in the budget. In the case of guns ... The right to bear arms is granted in the Constitution any infringement or expansion of that right must come from Congress.

    I personally feel that we need to get a grip on the Executive Order issue. I see it as a means of by passing Congress for pet projects (for both sides) .... it should be restricted to the Executive Branch and funded through the Executive Branch budget approved by Congress.

    The Constitution allows for three branches of government each with specific duties ... therefor allowing a check and balance in the government. I did not read anywhere in the Constitution about delegated legislation ... as legislation is the job of the legislative branch ... not executive or judicial.

    Another good reason to return to a Constitutional government. It would rid a whole lot of confusion out of the process.

    Just one mans thoughts .... Bob.

    Hi Poch ... hope the new year is kind to you and yours. Best wishes.
    • thumb
      Jan 8 2014: the real question is about Executive Orders themselves.
      Your excellent feedback just produced a bigger question:
      Or should the Executive Order itself be amended?
      And again, great exposition and suggestions too. Best wishes to you too Bob.
  • thumb
    Jan 9 2014: I think it would be more effective if the fed controls the amount
    of ammunition being sold. Why don't they do that when that is much easier!?
    • Jan 9 2014: Because with a bit of know-how, and using only machinery and raw materials available on the open market for more innocent uses, you could make ammo for small arms in your basement. Ammo is also easier to smuggle illegally (its more compact).

      Guerrilla groups around the world have been doing it for decades. Guns are more difficult to manufacture or smuggle, so if you're going to regulate anything, guns would be more effective then their ammo.
      • thumb
        Jan 9 2014: I see now Nadav. But still, allowing civilians to buy hundreds
        of rounds of ammos (the case with most school mass-shooters) will make the feds
        look like abettors.
  • thumb
    Jan 9 2014: Round Two: Ding. I thought about this again and the term HIPPA popped into my mind.

    HIPAA Laws and Regulations are divided into five Rules:
    • Privacy Rule
    • Security Rule
    • Transactions Rule
    • Identifiers Rule
    • Enforcement Rule
    • HITECH Act

    Since HIPPA law cannot be violated how will this EO be enforced with out a violation of rights. Again a congressional passed law against a political agenda .... interesting is it not.

    I wish you well. Bob.
    • thumb
      Jan 9 2014: 'Since HIPPA law cannot be violated how will this EO
      be enforced with out a violation of rights...'
      So the EO is no good because it's a violation of rights!?

      'Again a congressional passed law against a political agenda ....'
      Is that agenda good or bad?
      • thumb
        Jan 9 2014: agendas are like beauty they are judged in the eye of the beholder.

        Good and bad are judged by history ....

        Further ... items such as this have went before congress and were defeated ... why would anyone want to impose on the people what the peoples representatives have rejected. I consider that imposing ones will on others .... that would be contrary to the Constitution and the basics of a Republic.

        Again bringing us back to limits of the Executive Orders. If Congress says no then is a Executive Order in defiance of Congress to achieve a personal goal. If that is possible then why have three branches of government?

        It is no secret that the Democrats have for years sought to remove guns from the public and were campaign promises from both Obama and Hillary.

        The rights violated were guaranteed by law in the HIPPA Act by Congress.

        Mid term elections are coming and time to review campaign promises ....

        If you cannot get it through congress then make a big show of an EO to align the vote.

        See ya. Bob.
        • thumb
          Jan 9 2014: As I see it now, most loopholes in various laws are less obvious
          than this EO circus!
  • Jan 8 2014: This sounds like something that should be under the legislative branch's domain, not the executive branch. Of course, given the sorry state of the US congress, I can sympathize with the need to bypass it to get things done.

    Bad outcome either way--either democracy is hurt by bypassing the legislative body, or nothing gets done because the legislative body is a mess.
    • thumb
      Jan 9 2014: Good analysis Nadav although it's bleak news.
      At least the fed is trying to do something now.