
President Trump: Eliminate Most Gun-Free Zones With An Executive Order
#1
Posted 11 October 2019 - 08:52 PM
#2
Posted 11 October 2019 - 09:24 PM
#3
Posted 11 October 2019 - 09:33 PM
Title is click bait, and first post at that....GJ
#4
Posted 11 October 2019 - 09:38 PM
What one president can 'give' the next can take away...
I don't like executive orders.
NRA Endowment Life Member
ISRA Member
Retired Firefighter/Paramedic
Father of two great kids and husband of one great wife
Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to buy cars... ~unknown
The problem is not guns! It's hearts without God, homes without discipline, schools without prayer, and courts without justice. ~unknown
"A general dissolution of the principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy.
While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader." ~ Samuel Adams 1779 to James Warren
Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. ~Daniel Webster
How much can you put in your signature before it becomes too long??
#5
Posted 11 October 2019 - 09:53 PM
im afraid the president has much bigger things on his mind right now.
#6
Posted 11 October 2019 - 10:31 PM
That said, would be nice if he could do it/were to do it
#7
Posted 12 October 2019 - 04:52 AM
What one president can 'give' the next can take away...
I don't like executive orders.
UNless Lib judges say he can’t ..... DACA !!
#8
Posted 12 October 2019 - 05:32 AM
Yeah don't worry, some Obama appointed judge will "block" it.
#9
Posted 12 October 2019 - 05:40 AM
I usually wait for the post count to be larger than 100 and the join date to be measured in months or years, not days before directly responding to posted topics…. but that's just me. It kinda keeps me from falling down any rabbit holes - lol
"Don't believe everything you read on the internet" - Abraham Lincoln
#10
Posted 14 October 2019 - 11:48 AM
Yeah don't worry, some Obama appointed judge will "block" it.
No kidding. That's why I predicted it and what should happen next. The whole point is to get it fast tracked to the Supreme Court. If abortion is a civil right, how can having a concealed handgun in a kill zone not be?
#11
Posted 15 October 2019 - 02:17 PM
UNless Lib judges say he can’t ..... DACA !!What one president can 'give' the next can take away...
I don't like executive orders.
Yeah don't worry, some Obama appointed judge will "block" it.
Bingo !!
“Small minds adhere to the letter of the law; great minds dispense Justice.” - - S. C. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
Life member NAHC, Endowment member NRA
#12
Posted 15 October 2019 - 05:37 PM
#13
Posted 17 October 2019 - 01:00 PM
#14
Posted 17 October 2019 - 01:23 PM
If they fight this they open the door to SCOTUS eventually ruling that banning rights in governmental facilities as unconstitutional.
donaldd4557ui
#15
Posted 18 October 2019 - 02:56 PM
If they fight this they open the door to SCOTUS eventually ruling that banning rights in governmental facilities as unconstitutional.
That's a good point. Since Trump is a bold outside-the-box strategic thinker, he might actually see this as the magic bullet if it gets to him.
#16
Posted 19 October 2019 - 12:37 PM
Thomas Paine gets the idea, as did so many people in this forum who signed a petition last year:My point is that the McDonald v. Chicago decision changed everything and this is no longer just a public policy issue - it's a civil rights issue. If Trump can get the Supreme Court to agree by triggering an injunction with an Executive Order, he can be to self defense rights what Eisenhower was to education rights when he desegregated the schools.
You're right. It is a civil rights issue and even more importantly, it's a national security issue. Think of the 49 people murdered by a Muslim terrorist in an Orlando nightclub. Even if you concede that it might be dangerous to have inebriated customers with guns, what's the rationale for depriving all the employees of their right to defend themselves? If the terrorist thought there was a credible threat of armed resistance from them, all those people might still be alive.
#17
Posted 19 October 2019 - 07:40 PM
Thomas Paine gets the idea, as did so many people in this forum who signed a petition last year:My point is that the McDonald v. Chicago decision changed everything and this is no longer just a public policy issue - it's a civil rights issue. If Trump can get the Supreme Court to agree by triggering an injunction with an Executive Order, he can be to self defense rights what Eisenhower was to education rights when he desegregated the schools.You're right. It is a civil rights issue and even more importantly, it's a national security issue. Think of the 49 people murdered by a Muslim terrorist in an Orlando nightclub. Even if you concede that it might be dangerous to have inebriated customers with guns, what's the rationale for depriving all the employees of their right to defend themselves? If the terrorist thought there was a credible threat of armed resistance from them, all those people might still be alive.
Agreed !
“Small minds adhere to the letter of the law; great minds dispense Justice.” - - S. C. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
Life member NAHC, Endowment member NRA
#18
Posted 26 October 2019 - 11:33 AM
Thomas Paine gets the idea, as did so many people in this forum who signed a petition last year:My point is that the McDonald v. Chicago decision changed everything and this is no longer just a public policy issue - it's a civil rights issue. If Trump can get the Supreme Court to agree by triggering an injunction with an Executive Order, he can be to self defense rights what Eisenhower was to education rights when he desegregated the schools.
You're right. It is a civil rights issue and even more importantly, it's a national security issue. Think of the 49 people murdered by a Muslim terrorist in an Orlando nightclub. Even if you concede that it might be dangerous to have inebriated customers with guns, what's the rationale for depriving all the employees of their right to defend themselves? If the terrorist thought there was a credible threat of armed resistance from them, all those people might still be alive.
With ISIS having lost their caliphate and out for revenge, and with kill zones (euphemistically called gun-free zones) all around the country, you could even argue that it's a national security emergency. Logically, a simple 3 step process would drastically reduce the incidence and severity of any future mass shootings.1) President Trump signs an Executive Order.2) A federal judge blocks it with an injunction.3) The Supreme Court, on an expedited national security basis, upholds it.Would this strategy actually work? Is there a Constitutional Lawyer in the house?
#19
Posted 28 October 2019 - 09:52 AM
As pointed out above by mmart in post #4 one president's executive order can be reversed by a later president.
Apparently some here believe that President Trump is a close personal friend who will follow their suggestions.
Then, of course, the justices on the Supreme Court come here for advice.
If it were so simple the various national and state pro-2A organizations would have approached the President long ago with the same idea, and he would have done it.
#20
Posted 28 October 2019 - 02:31 PM
As pointed out above by mmart in post #4 one president's executive order can be reversed by a later president.
Apparently some here believe that President Trump is a close personal friend who will follow their suggestions.
Then, of course, the justices on the Supreme Court come here for advice.
If it were so simple the various national and state pro-2A organizations would have approached the President long ago with the same idea, and he would have done it.
#21
Posted 28 October 2019 - 05:04 PM
As a candidate and as President, Mr. Trump has spoken out against gun-free zones. He has issued several executive orders in other areas.
The NRA has condemned GFZs.
https://www.newsmax.com/headline/us-gop-2016-trump-guns/2016/01/07/id/708639/
You are not introducing an idea that the President is not aware of. If it were that simple, he would have signed the executive order in his first 30 days.
I seriously doubt that we can get Governor Pritzker or Senators Durbin or Duckworth to advise him to do so.
#22
Posted 28 October 2019 - 11:45 PM
As a candidate and as President, Mr. Trump has spoken out against gun-free zones. He has issued several executive orders in other areas.
The NRA has condemned GFZs.
https://www.newsmax.com/headline/us-gop-2016-trump-guns/2016/01/07/id/708639/
You are not introducing an idea that the President is not aware of. If it were that simple, he would have signed the executive order in his first 30 days.
I seriously doubt that we can get Governor Pritzker or Senators Durbin or Duckworth to advise him to do so.
#23
Posted 29 October 2019 - 09:07 AM
I guess you assume that only Illinois residents in Democrat districts read these posts. There are 435 representatives, 100 senators and 50 governors. Also, it wasn't a national security emergency in his first 30 days and it would have been a huge political risk.Now, he can use it to his advantage with a national address explaining the common sense reasons for the order. When the Gun Free School Zones Act was passed, nobody could have anticipated the disastrous consequences of its perverse incentives and copycat kill zones. But, we've seen them for decades now and it's time for a solution that would save lives without taking away any of our rights.
#24
Posted 30 October 2019 - 10:40 PM
As pointed out above by mmart in post #4 one president's executive order can be reversed by a later president.
The "Do Nothing" (except impeach) Democrats have made it clear they will not work with the President (since January 2017). So time to go on the offensive. Pass an EO every week from now until November of 2020. Let the people see the benefits, get reelected on those mandates, take back the House, and get them passed into law.
If GFZs were eliminated and National Reciprocity were signed as an EO tomorrow, after a year of no blood in the streets, on what basis would a new President reverse it? Everyone on this forum knows that their arguments against it would be proven as lies and fear mongering because that's all that they have. It's that way with every single issue.
Trump was elected because Washington is incapable of getting anything done. So go it alone and let the people decide in 2020 what is better for the country.
#25
Posted 31 October 2019 - 12:29 AM
I guess you assume that only Illinois residents in Democrat districts read these posts. There are 435 representatives, 100 senators and 50 governors. Also, it wasn't a national security emergency in his first 30 days and it would have been a huge political risk.Now, he can use it to his advantage with a national address explaining the common sense reasons for the order. When the Gun Free School Zones Act was passed, nobody could have anticipated the disastrous consequences of its perverse incentives and copycat kill zones. But, we've seen them for decades now and it's time for a solution that would save lives without taking away any of our rights.Instead of just sharing your ideas here, have you called or written to the President, your governor, your U.S. senators, or U.S. representative? Call the NRA, GOA, etc.As I pointed out above, the President, his advisors, the various pro-2A organizations and their lawyers are well aware of executive orders. They would have pushed and/or tried it, if it were feasible. This idea is not new.An executive order does not require a national emergency. In 2018 President Trump signed legislation to increase funding for school safety, If it were practical he could have issued an executive order before then or since then.
One of your links deals only with schools and the other has been scrubbed. A comprehensive ban on gun-free zones could have saved 49 lives in Orlando and the legislative route, even if possible without some serious concessions, would take too long to prevent another massacre. Timing is everything and we have stirred up a hornets' nest by killing ISIS leaders. Tell the organizers of the New York City marathon this isn't a national security emergency.Rahm Emanuel said "You never let a serious crisis go to waste." If there were only a couple of degrees of separation between the President and me, you'd better believe I'd be working those connections. I don't have that luxury, but I'm willing to bet somebody here does. If you have a better idea than wasting time trying to get the attention of people I don't know, please share it. The clock is ticking and lives depend on it.
#26
Posted 31 October 2019 - 09:07 AM
I do not think that anyone here has spoken against the reversal of most gun-free zone laws. The questions are "can it be done via presidential executive order and how long would it be in effect".
I am still waiting to see a post by someone who has called and/or written to President Trump or other officials.
#27
Posted 31 October 2019 - 09:30 AM
The federal carry ban has an exemption here
(3)
donaldd4557ui
#28
Posted 31 October 2019 - 09:31 AM
The federal carry ban has an exemption here
(3)
the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.The executive order could clarify that arrests and prosecutions for lawful concealed and open carriers for mere possession violates the letter of the law.
If the anti-gun challenge it in court SCOTUS would likely be forced to side with Trump due to the letter of the law and as a result we would have a court ruling using the law itself to expand 2nd amendment rights.
Edited by borgranta, 31 October 2019 - 09:33 AM.
donaldd4557ui
#29
Posted 01 November 2019 - 05:00 AM
As pointed out above by mmart in post #4 one president's executive order can be reversed by a later president.
The "Do Nothing" (except impeach) Democrats have made it clear they will not work with the President (since January 2017). So time to go on the offensive. Pass an EO every week from now until November of 2020. Let the people see the benefits, get reelected on those mandates, take back the House, and get them passed into law.
If GFZs were eliminated and National Reciprocity were signed as an EO tomorrow, after a year of no blood in the streets, on what basis would a new President reverse it? Everyone on this forum knows that their arguments against it would be proven as lies and fear mongering because that's all that they have. It's that way with every single issue.
Trump was elected because Washington is incapable of getting anything done. So go it alone and let the people decide in 2020 what is better for the country.
An EO of this nature would be blocked by an Obama appointed judge before the ink was even dry.
I think the attempt would be futile.
#30
Posted 01 November 2019 - 02:33 PM
As pointed out above by mmart in post #4 one president's executive order can be reversed by a later president.
The "Do Nothing" (except impeach) Democrats have made it clear they will not work with the President (since January 2017). So time to go on the offensive. Pass an EO every week from now until November of 2020. Let the people see the benefits, get reelected on those mandates, take back the House, and get them passed into law.
If GFZs were eliminated and National Reciprocity were signed as an EO tomorrow, after a year of no blood in the streets, on what basis would a new President reverse it? Everyone on this forum knows that their arguments against it would be proven as lies and fear mongering because that's all that they have. It's that way with every single issue.
Trump was elected because Washington is incapable of getting anything done. So go it alone and let the people decide in 2020 what is better for the country.
An EO of this nature would be blocked by an Obama appointed judge before the ink was even dry.
I think the attempt would be futile.
You obviously haven't been paying attention to what's been written here. It's a 3 STEP STRATEGY! The Obama judge would be a useful idiot executing the second step.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users