Executive Orders

theiioftx

theiioftx

Sponsor Deputy
Hillary Clinton is now letting liberals know she plans to use her "pen and phone" to make changes to the 2nd amendment. Just curious who supports this. I know EO's are not new, but Obama has taken it to a new level. I think this is the greatest threat to the American way of life. Do liberals really support this?
 
Democrats seem to think Hillary doesn't need to debate till very late in the season. I wonder why?
 
theiioftx said:
Do liberals really support this?
Click to expand...

They support it when it's done for a reason they like. Let a Republican President use executive orders to effectively cut taxes or dump the Iran deal, and you'll see them freak out.
 
Last edited:
Gun control is such a loser for the dems. They use it to excite their base then drop it in the general every time. Look at the culture of most independents in swing states - the people that actually decide elections. They are far from anti-gun.

The other problem is that anybody with a brain knows that unless you go door to door rounding up guns, and basically starting civil war 2, its all a waste of time. There will still be guns all over the place, people have legitimate reasons for having them, and we haven't even got to the second amendment yet.

The political part of the problem with independents is that the dems have no credibility when it comes to "common sense" gun control. Nobody believes they want to ban assault rifles and stop there. So, why give them the first step and get that incremental snowball rolling? I say all of this as somebody that doesn't own a gun and doesn't really want one.
 
Last edited:
Supposedly she wants to make gun manufacturers open to lawsuits if their weapons are used in mass shootings, like in Oregon. That's like making Toyota liable when a drunk gets in their Camry and kills an innocent family by driving on the wrong side of the highway . Makes no sense, but she'll say/do ANYTHING to get elected.
 
As far as controversy over expansion/use of executive powers, it happens in every administration, at least since the Johnson and Nixon Administrations, when I started paying attention. Seems like it was about 8 years ago when our Attorney General feined memory failure commensurate with an amnesia diagnosis to avoid explaining why Karl
Rove was using prosecutorial powers for political purpose.
 
Liberals seem to like Obama's use of EO and Hillary thinks her base will get excited about it too. I wonder how EO might work for the Republicans if they win in 2016?
 
Without making any comment on Obama, I would like to point out that the actual importance of the EO matters more than the total number. I would rather give a president 1,000 worthless ones about naming it George Washington day at a national park than 1 important one that is something that should go through congress.
 
Larry T Spider said:
Without making any comment on Obama, I would like to point out that the actual importance of the EO matters more than the total number. I would rather give a president 1,000 worthless ones about naming it George Washington day at a national park than 1 important one that is something that should go through congress.
Click to expand...

Without evaluating all of the hundreds of EOs that's an impossible exercise. I know Republicans would point to Obama's immigration EOs yet ignore that Reagan and Bush Jr. had very similar "amnesty" immigration EOs. As Deez stated above, each side hates it when the other side uses the EO for issues they disagree with. I'd simplify that to they hate it when POTUS from the opposite party uses the EO, period.
 
Clean said:
Supposedly she wants to make gun manufacturers open to lawsuits if their weapons are used in mass shootings, like in Oregon. That's like making Toyota liable when a drunk gets in their Camry and kills an innocent family by driving on the wrong side of the highway . Makes no sense, but she'll say/do ANYTHING to get elected.
Click to expand...

You can't sue Toyota UNLESS they acted negligently, such as by failing to install a safety feature that a reasonable manufacturer would have installed. Any argument that gun manufacturers should be liable for all gun injuries, no matter what, is silly. If that is what Clinton is saying, I don't buy it.

However, it is defensible to argue that the standards that apply to cars should also apply to guns. I'm not sure how that would play out in practice, but I think it is a reasonable position to take.
 
As pointed out by Larry, it is not the number, but the magnitude and the brashness of openly saying that you will subvert law to get what you want. However, I know you could care less about that as long as Obama is a supreme authority to make all decisions for you.

I guess you guys would be okay if Huckabee wins and just uses EO? (I know he will not win, but EO for personal belief over law is dangerous)
 
And you can sue a gun manufacturer if the gun is defective. You cannot sue the manufacturer if the user is defective.
 
Two cops are suing a gun mfg and the dealer because the mfg/dealer knew or should have known that the gun likely would end up in bad guys hands.

"Gun manufacturers and gun dealers have known for years that gun trafficking and multiple sales of firearms supply the criminal gun market," said Jonathan Lowy, a senior attorney with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence's Legal Action Project, which is representing the two policemen. "

"They have the ability to stop the flow of guns to criminals, yet they do nothing," he added. "They must be made to realize that their irresponsible conduct has very real consequences — in this case, the shooting of two police officers."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91057&page=1

I guess this is one way to circumvent the Constitution.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Without evaluating all of the hundreds of EOs that's an impossible exercise. I know Republicans would point to Obama's immigration EOs yet ignore that Reagan and Bush Jr. had very similar "amnesty" immigration EOs. As Deez stated above, each side hates it when the other side uses the EO for issues they disagree with. I'd simplify that to they hate it when POTUS from the opposite party uses the EO, period.
Click to expand...
I just did a very quick review of W's 2009 EO's. All seem to be "appoint" or "granting" or " "strengthening" and none seemed to subvert law. While most conservatives love Reagan's presidency, few will say every decision was correct. Please enlighten us on any previous EO's that are worse than HRC's plan to override the 2nd amendment.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Essentially, the 2005 law protects gun manufacturers from the bartender argument, meaning is a bartender responsible for monitoring a customers drinking habits. NPR had a decent article about this topic: http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...-totally-free-of-liability-for-their-behavior
Click to expand...

the obvious difference in the bartender is the observable condition. By law, a manufacturer must only sell their product through a Federally licensed entity/person ... moreover, their product can only be sold to an individual who submits to NICS for the purpose of screening disqualifying conditions, advising the FFL, then THEY act accordingly.

What does the opportunity of the firearm manufacturer's product having the potential to be possessed by someone who should not have their product the responsibility of the manufacturer. They are responsible for the proper operation of their product, nothing more. Not HOW or by whose possession the product becomes.

That someone illegally possesses this product is an offense already.

This threatened litigation is nothing more than a measure to increase the cost of firearm ownership ... and possibly drive a legitimate business out of the country. How convenient for the anti-gunners.

... and this will result in what? illegal firearm possession ... like we already have!

BAD BAD BAD.

The Fed needs to secure the border rather than be concerned about a citizen's armory.
 
HRC is right on the lawsuits against gun manufacturers. First, she's not endorsing such lawsuits. What she's doing is calling for the repeal of a FEDERAL law prohibiting such lawsuits. If she came out in favor of creating a federal cause of action to sue gun manufacturers, that would be endorsing the lawsuits.

Second, the lawsuits against gun manufacturers present issues of tort liability. The right to impose or not to impose tort liability is a power reserved to the states. That means it''s for state legislatures and state courts to decide, and it's no more Congress' right to intrude than it is Congress' right to dictate curriculum standards to your local schools.

Personally, I'm not a fan of suing gun manufacturers, unless there's an actual product defect (like the gun exploding in the user's hand) or unless they sell to someone who wasn't legally permitted to purchase a gun. However, I'm less of a fan of Washington, D.C. wiping its *** with the Tenth Amendment and the Seventh Amendment.

I know many here don't give a crap, because they like anything that promotes guns regardless of merit. However, let's make the identical point with a different issue. There's one area where Republicans and plaintiff's lawyers have had agreement over the years - the right of someone to sue for wrongful death for the killing of an unborn baby (so-called "prenatal protection acts"). For example, if a truck driver passes out at the wheel and rear-end's a pregnant woman and kills the baby, mom and dad can sue the truck driver for killing their baby. (Texas passed such a law in 2003.) Liberals hate those lawsuits, because they treat the unborn baby like a live child.

Suppose that, in response to pressure from pro-abortion advocates, a Democratic Congress passed a federal law prohibiting those lawsuits. Would you be a fan of that? My guess is that not only would you complain about it, you'd say they didn't have the right to pass such a law and complain about states' rights getting crapped on. The law HRC is talking about is no more legitimate.
 
I'll agree the 2005 law was really unnecessary at best, but that effort was made. It's also pointless to make the effort to repeal it when there are so many other priorities ... but those priorities seek to solve problems and that cannot abide. Only the creation of problems whereby the apparent solution can only be provided by more government.
 
Owner liability could have a positive impact. Wonder if straw buyers might think twice before equipping a gang banger if they knew the weapon would be traced to them and that they'd have financial responsibility for the innocents killed/property destroyed? Would people be more likely to lock the gun cabinet or at least report weapons stolen or sold elsewhere if they retained liability for it's misuse? It would increase the "hassle factor" of gun ownership, which I would weigh agains the hassle factor of bleeding in the street.
 
liability is what will kill HS football ... & maybe put a big dent in collegiate football, too.

It's the backdoor way of effecting behavior rather than letting adults make decisions for themselves. Ironic, isn't it ... the drug laws are targets of those who think those same adults who should be able to decide on whether or not to be a toker can't decide if they can own a firearm.

All in the windmill.
 
Seattle Husker said:
I don't agree with the Executive Order process since it usurps the legislative branch's authority.
Click to expand...

When the EO authority isn't abused, it doesn't usurp legislative authority. EOs are supposed to be used to implement and execute federal statutes by providing guidance to federal employees in doing so. The problem is that sometimes the President will use the EO to undermine the execution of federal statutes.
 
ShAArk92 said:
It's the backdoor way of effecting behavior rather than letting adults make decisions for themselves.
Click to expand...

Actually, that's not usually how tort liability works at all. Most tort cases involve somebody just going about his life and getting hurt because of someone else doing something dangerous or fraudulent. Yes, that can have the effect of regulating behavior by making the wrongdoer bear the risk of harm when their misconduct hurts somebody else. However, that's not the same thing as keeping adults from making decisions for themselves. They certainly can. People can contract to assume their own risks in most situations, and even when they don't, defendants can claim they assumed the risks anyway by engaging in dangerous activity.
 
Mr. Deez said:
HRC is right on the lawsuits against gun manufacturers. First, she's not endorsing such lawsuits. What she's doing is calling for the repeal of a FEDERAL law prohibiting such lawsuits. If she came out in favor of creating a federal cause of action to sue gun manufacturers, that would be endorsing the lawsuits.

Second, the lawsuits against gun manufacturers present issues of tort liability. The right to impose or not to impose tort liability is a power reserved to the states. That means it''s for state legislatures and state courts to decide, and it's no more Congress' right to intrude than it is Congress' right to dictate curriculum standards to your local schools.

Personally, I'm not a fan of suing gun manufacturers, unless there's an actual product defect (like the gun exploding in the user's hand) or unless they sell to someone who wasn't legally permitted to purchase a gun. However, I'm less of a fan of Washington, D.C. wiping its *** with the Tenth Amendment and the Seventh Amendment.

I know many here don't give a crap, because they like anything that promotes guns regardless of merit. However, let's make the identical point with a different issue. There's one area where Republicans and plaintiff's lawyers have had agreement over the years - the right of someone to sue for wrongful death for the killing of an unborn baby (so-called "prenatal protection acts"). For example, if a truck driver passes out at the wheel and rear-end's a pregnant woman and kills the baby, mom and dad can sue the truck driver for killing their baby. (Texas passed such a law in 2003.) Liberals hate those lawsuits, because they treat the unborn baby like a live child.

Suppose that, in response to pressure from pro-abortion advocates, a Democratic Congress passed a federal law prohibiting those lawsuits. Would you be a fan of that? My guess is that not only would you complain about it, you'd say they didn't have the right to pass such a law and complain about states' rights getting crapped on. The law HRC is talking about is no more legitimate.
Click to expand...

HRC is not right on this (strictly speaking from reason, not law). Unfortunately, not all lawyers are like you. There would be unending lawsuits until every manufacturer was out of business. As mentioned earlier, you could apply that to cars manufacturers, knife manufacturers, hammers, etc.

Would lawyers be in favor of lawsuits every time they did not win a case? I am not talking malpractice, I am simply saying every time someone's case did not go in their favor. The answer is no because there is no way an attorney can guarantee how a judge or jury will interpret the case. Same principle here-no way it makes sense to bring a lawsuit against a defect free product simply because someone else used it for a harmful situation.
 
theiioftx said:
There would be unending lawsuits until every manufacturer was out of business.
Click to expand...

Good point. It reminds me of when we applied tort lawsuits to auto manufacturers, driving them all out of business. I can still remember when there were cars all over the roads.

theiioftx said:
No way it makes sense to bring a lawsuit against a defect free product simply because someone else used it for a harmful situation.
Click to expand...

Absolutely correct. The question is, what does it mean for a product to be "defect free"? it is settled law that the lack of a safety feature can be considered a defect. That's why we have blade shields on power saws. The saw worked perfectly fine without a shield, but someone misused it, got hurt, sued, and won. That is true for almost every product, except guns.

I'm not sure how this would play out for guns, and I'm not convinced it should be left to the states because some (especially up here) would go too far. At some point, the Second Amendment has to come into play. One thing I do know, though, is that your analogy with how other products are treated is inaccurate.
 
NJlonghorn said:
Good point. It reminds me of when we applied tort lawsuits to auto manufacturers, driving them all out of business. I can still remember when there were cars all over the roads.



Absolutely correct. The question is, what does it mean for a product to be "defect free"? it is settled law that the lack of a safety feature can be considered a defect. That's why we have blade shields on power saws. The saw worked perfectly fine without a shield, but someone misused it, got hurt, sued, and won. That is true for almost every product, except guns.

I'm not sure how this would play out for guns, and I'm not convinced it should be left to the states because some (especially up here) would go too far. At some point, the Second Amendment has to come into play. One thing I do know, though, is that your analogy with how other products are treated is inaccurate.
Click to expand...

Car manufacturers are held responsible when someone crashes a perfectly operating auto?
 
theiioftx said:
HRC is not right on this (strictly speaking from reason, not law). Unfortunately, not all lawyers are like you. There would be unending lawsuits until every manufacturer was out of business. As mentioned earlier, you could apply that to cars manufacturers, knife manufacturers, hammers, etc.

Would lawyers be in favor of lawsuits every time they did not win a case? I am not talking malpractice, I am simply saying every time someone's case did not go in their favor. The answer is no because there is no way an attorney can guarantee how a judge or jury will interpret the case. Same principle here-no way it makes sense to bring a lawsuit against a defect free product simply because someone else used it for a harmful situation.
Click to expand...

Eye,

You're arguing the merits of the lawsuits. That's not my point at all, and frankly, it's not even HRC's point.

If you want to discuss the merits of the lawsuits, that's fine. However, I take off my POTUS hat and put on my state legislator or state supreme court justice hat to do that, because that's who should be making the decision.

If we're talking about cases in which someone murders another person with a gun that was legally purchased by the murderer, then no, there shouldn't be any lawsuit against the gun manufacturer or seller. To be honest, I don't know that anyone has called for that.

What fact scenarios make a lawsuit more justifiable? If the murderer was legally prohibited from having the gun, I think a lawsuit against the person or entity that provided it to him is perfectly fair. (That would be pretty analogous to negligent entrustment cases involving automobiles. If you loan your car to a person you know to be unlicensed or incompetent to drive (drunk, etc.), you can get sued.)

If some defect in the gun causes it to injure someone (explosion, firing without the trigger being pulled, perhaps even failure to fire when the trigger is pulled, etc.), I think a lawsuit against the manufacturer is fair game. That's a basic products liability cases - similar to a case against an auto manufacturer when a gas tank explodes upon a minor impact collision or a seat belt fails.
 
Last edited:
MrD
I agree that manufacturers of any product are and should be liable for defective products.
I also agree that a seller who sells a large number of guns to one person in a short time might be held liable but at the very least should notify authorities. Of course if that becomes practice then the buyer could just go to another seller.
Maybe there should be a limit on the number of guns any one person could buy within a specified time limit.
In the case of the Oregon killer none of those restrictions / practices would have helped.
What would help IMO is to go after the buyer HARD. In this case as in the case in Conn go after the Mother.

I think the only reason some want to sue mfgs is they have the money and the middle man buying and then selling to criminals doesn't have any. So charge and convict middlemen, whoever they are even parents.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top