Gun rights

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by adpimiz

I just don't like how they surpass Congress. I know our Congress right now is fairly split and has a habit of not getting much done. But, the point of the three different branches of government is so that one branch doesn't get out of control. I know executive orders are necessary, they just rub me the wrong way sometimes.

Executive orders can't surpass Congress. Only Congress can pass laws. The executive branch must administer those laws, and one of the ways they do that is by administrative rules and regulations and executive orders that fill in details. This is an expected part of the process -- Congress typically doesn't fill in too much detail, but leaves that to the executive branch and specifically authorizes the executive branch to fill in those details through regulations. Also, executive orders can be issued with regard to matters about which the Constitution gives responsibility to the president rather than Congress.

Executive orders and administrative rules and regulations can be challenged in court, just like statutes passed by Congress can be, on the grounds that the president or executive agency exceeded his or its authority and/or attempted to exercise legislative authority.

Originally Posted by DGTess

If Congress or the administration wanted to do something for *safety*, they'd address simultaneously firearms laws, mental health laws, and societal violence. The fact they have not tells me they are using a tragedy to further a political agenda.

I very much appreciated the insights of your post, and I tend to agree with this, with perhaps one caveat: I'm willing to give at least some people the benefit of the doubt that they're acting out of sincere motives. But complex problems typically aren't solved by simplistic solutions.

The fact they're attempting to ban standard-capacity magazines (which they call "high-capacity" and "clips" and dozens of other terms), semi-automatic rifles (which they call "automatic weapons" and other terms), and cosmetic features of standard rifles means they're playing games.

Or perhaps they really don't understand the differences and nuances -- I'll admit I don't completely, though I'm trying to learn and correct that. That said, one undertaking a push for any kind of legislation has an obligation to understand the subject matter.

I don't hunt. While I appreciate people who do, the 2nd Amendment is not about hunting.

I'd agree that the 2nd Amendment isn't about recreational hunting, but I think to the extent that hunting may be necessary for food -- and while it's not any more for most Americans, it still may be for some -- it can have some applicability, I think. But I'd agree it's primarily about community defense (militia) and self-defense.