National Emergency for Border Wall Sets Precedent for National Emergency on Guns?

[danielpalos]

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Try to sell it that way when the unhinged left goes to confiscate Americans guns.

don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well.

i don't take You very seriously.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It is scary that same Constitution it says the right to bear arms is given to the people is the one that says the right to spend money is given to the US Congress.

It will be interesting if this case goes to the Supreme Court and if they set the precedent that in a national emergency the President can override those rights.

I hope they don't agree with that.

The People are the Militia, you are either Well Regulated or unorganized.

All criminals are unorganized militia.

 

[The Original Tree]

I fell Asleep While reading the title, and first couple of lines in your post, and just couldn’t carry on. Could you repeat yourself and make this more exciting so I can stay awake?

What was this about again?

Oh Lefty thinks he can wish away our 2nd amendment rights?

This is so impossible that it puts me to sleep thinking about it.

Using a National Emergency to protect our Constitutional Rights and our borders is one thing, but using it to deny Constitutional rights is another.

So I agree with the premise that using an EO to suspend or overturn the 2nd is next to impossible, fairy tale stuff.

I've seen this statement made repeatedly on here and elsewhere: "Trump declaring a national emergency for border wall funding will lay the ground for the next Democrat president to declare a national emergency on guns."

Definitive answer -- No, it will not. As a resident attorney on this board, let me educate you about the two Supreme Court decisions that eliminate that silly assertion from this discussion.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). This was the first landmark decision on the Second Amendment, and the Supreme Court's first opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment in terms of whether it confers citizens with an individual right to bear arms, or whether that right only applies to a "well regulated militia." The Supreme Court held the former, emphasizing that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes (such as self-defense within the home), and that D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated the rights conferred upon individuals by the Second Amendment.

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). This was the second landmark decision of the Supreme Court on the Second Amendment. There, the Supreme Court expanded upon its decision in Heller, and concluded that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" under the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states, thereby prohibiting states from enacting laws infringing upon that individual constitutional right.

That is the law of the land folks. Any attempt by the executive branch to declare a national emergency that would infringe upon that right would be promptly dispatched by the Supreme Court based on these existing precedents which unequivocally hold that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is an individual right and cannot be infringed by the federal government or the states.

 

[danielpalos]

why does the right wing insist on publishing fake news but blame the left?

 

[B. Kidd]

don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well.

i don't take You very seriously.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It is scary that same Constitution it says the right to bear arms is given to the people is the one that says the right to spend money is given to the US Congress.

It will be interesting if this case goes to the Supreme Court and if they set the precedent that in a national emergency the President can override those rights.

I hope they don't agree with that.

They will.
Because Congress gave the right to the President to declare a National Emergency.
If you need anything else cleared up for you, just call 1-800-EAT-SHIT.

And now that that can of worms is opened, I guess we will see if the Supreme Court will agree that it can be used in direct opposition of Constitutional rights or not.

"Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." - Winston Churchhill

 

[SandSquid]

I've seen this statement made repeatedly on here and elsewhere: "Trump declaring a national emergency for border wall funding will lay the ground for the next Democrat president to declare a national emergency on guns."

Definitive answer -- No, it will not. As a resident attorney on this board, let me educate you about the two Supreme Court decisions that eliminate that silly assertion from this discussion.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). This was the first landmark decision on the Second Amendment, and the Supreme Court's first opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment in terms of whether it confers citizens with an individual right to bear arms, or whether that right only applies to a "well regulated militia." The Supreme Court held the former, emphasizing that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes (such as self-defense within the home), and that D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated the rights conferred upon individuals by the Second Amendment.

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). This was the second landmark decision of the Supreme Court on the Second Amendment. There, the Supreme Court expanded upon its decision in Heller, and concluded that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" under the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states, thereby prohibiting states from enacting laws infringing upon that individual constitutional right.

That is the law of the land folks. Any attempt by the executive branch to declare a national emergency that would infringe upon that right would be promptly dispatched by the Supreme Court based on these existing precedents which unequivocally hold that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is an individual right and cannot be infringed by the federal government or the states.

Yes the supreme Court ruled that gun ownership is a right of the people. And in cases like South Dakota vs Dole and the Sebelus Obamacare case clearly stated that the budget was a right of Congress to control...

I hope we don't have a Supreme Court ruling that says in a national emergency declared by the president those Constitutional rights can be revoked.

 

[B. Kidd]

I've seen this statement made repeatedly on here and elsewhere: "Trump declaring a national emergency for border wall funding will lay the ground for the next Democrat president to declare a national emergency on guns."

Definitive answer -- No, it will not. As a resident attorney on this board, let me educate you about the two Supreme Court decisions that eliminate that silly assertion from this discussion.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). This was the first landmark decision on the Second Amendment, and the Supreme Court's first opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment in terms of whether it confers citizens with an individual right to bear arms, or whether that right only applies to a "well regulated militia." The Supreme Court held the former, emphasizing that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes (such as self-defense within the home), and that D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated the rights conferred upon individuals by the Second Amendment.

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). This was the second landmark decision of the Supreme Court on the Second Amendment. There, the Supreme Court expanded upon its decision in Heller, and concluded that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" under the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states, thereby prohibiting states from enacting laws infringing upon that individual constitutional right.

That is the law of the land folks. Any attempt by the executive branch to declare a national emergency that would infringe upon that right would be promptly dispatched by the Supreme Court based on these existing precedents which unequivocally hold that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is an individual right and cannot be infringed by the federal government or the states.

Yes the supreme Court ruled that gun ownership is a right of the people. And in cases like South Dakota vs Dole and the Sebelus Obamacare case clearly stated that the budget was a right of Congress to control...

I hope we don't have a Supreme Court ruling that says in a national emergency declared by the president those Constitutional rights can be revoked.

No guarantees. It's a crap-shoot.

 

[danielpalos]

I've seen this statement made repeatedly on here and elsewhere: "Trump declaring a national emergency for border wall funding will lay the ground for the next Democrat president to declare a national emergency on guns."

Definitive answer -- No, it will not. As a resident attorney on this board, let me educate you about the two Supreme Court decisions that eliminate that silly assertion from this discussion.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). This was the first landmark decision on the Second Amendment, and the Supreme Court's first opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment in terms of whether it confers citizens with an individual right to bear arms, or whether that right only applies to a "well regulated militia." The Supreme Court held the former, emphasizing that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes (such as self-defense within the home), and that D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated the rights conferred upon individuals by the Second Amendment.

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). This was the second landmark decision of the Supreme Court on the Second Amendment. There, the Supreme Court expanded upon its decision in Heller, and concluded that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" under the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states, thereby prohibiting states from enacting laws infringing upon that individual constitutional right.

That is the law of the land folks. Any attempt by the executive branch to declare a national emergency that would infringe upon that right would be promptly dispatched by the Supreme Court based on these existing precedents which unequivocally hold that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is an individual right and cannot be infringed by the federal government or the states.

Yes the supreme Court ruled that gun ownership is a right of the people. And in cases like South Dakota vs Dole and the Sebelus Obamacare case clearly stated that the budget was a right of Congress to control...

I hope we don't have a Supreme Court ruling that says in a national emergency declared by the president those Constitutional rights can be revoked.

Only when natural rights are concerned, subject to the police power.

SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Source: Illinois Constitution.)

 

[SandSquid]

I've seen this statement made repeatedly on here and elsewhere: "Trump declaring a national emergency for border wall funding will lay the ground for the next Democrat president to declare a national emergency on guns."

Definitive answer -- No, it will not. As a resident attorney on this board, let me educate you about the two Supreme Court decisions that eliminate that silly assertion from this discussion.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). This was the first landmark decision on the Second Amendment, and the Supreme Court's first opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment in terms of whether it confers citizens with an individual right to bear arms, or whether that right only applies to a "well regulated militia." The Supreme Court held the former, emphasizing that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes (such as self-defense within the home), and that D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated the rights conferred upon individuals by the Second Amendment.

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). This was the second landmark decision of the Supreme Court on the Second Amendment. There, the Supreme Court expanded upon its decision in Heller, and concluded that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" under the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states, thereby prohibiting states from enacting laws infringing upon that individual constitutional right.

That is the law of the land folks. Any attempt by the executive branch to declare a national emergency that would infringe upon that right would be promptly dispatched by the Supreme Court based on these existing precedents which unequivocally hold that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is an individual right and cannot be infringed by the federal government or the states.

Yes the supreme Court ruled that gun ownership is a right of the people. And in cases like South Dakota vs Dole and the Sebelus Obamacare case clearly stated that the budget was a right of Congress to control...

I hope we don't have a Supreme Court ruling that says in a national emergency declared by the president those Constitutional rights can be revoked.

No guarantees. It's a crap-shoot.

It is a crap shoot on which way it will go. But remember, Supreme Court decisions aren't just a specific ruling but based on a ruling which tends to make a lot of waves. For example a state tax on a federal bank set precedent that all federal laws override state laws. And that the Federal government has powers not listed in the Constitution.

Their decision of if Trump's national emergency is legal would be based on them determining a National Emergency can override Constitutional powers. (Ie power to give right of spending to Congress or right of guns to citizens)..

 

[danielpalos]

I've seen this statement made repeatedly on here and elsewhere: "Trump declaring a national emergency for border wall funding will lay the ground for the next Democrat president to declare a national emergency on guns."

Definitive answer -- No, it will not. As a resident attorney on this board, let me educate you about the two Supreme Court decisions that eliminate that silly assertion from this discussion.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). This was the first landmark decision on the Second Amendment, and the Supreme Court's first opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment in terms of whether it confers citizens with an individual right to bear arms, or whether that right only applies to a "well regulated militia." The Supreme Court held the former, emphasizing that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes (such as self-defense within the home), and that D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated the rights conferred upon individuals by the Second Amendment.

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). This was the second landmark decision of the Supreme Court on the Second Amendment. There, the Supreme Court expanded upon its decision in Heller, and concluded that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" under the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states, thereby prohibiting states from enacting laws infringing upon that individual constitutional right.

That is the law of the land folks. Any attempt by the executive branch to declare a national emergency that would infringe upon that right would be promptly dispatched by the Supreme Court based on these existing precedents which unequivocally hold that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is an individual right and cannot be infringed by the federal government or the states.

Yes the supreme Court ruled that gun ownership is a right of the people. And in cases like South Dakota vs Dole and the Sebelus Obamacare case clearly stated that the budget was a right of Congress to control...

I hope we don't have a Supreme Court ruling that says in a national emergency declared by the president those Constitutional rights can be revoked.

No guarantees. It's a crap-shoot.

We have a Constitution. It is Express not Implied.

 

[B. Kidd]

I've seen this statement made repeatedly on here and elsewhere: "Trump declaring a national emergency for border wall funding will lay the ground for the next Democrat president to declare a national emergency on guns."

Definitive answer -- No, it will not. As a resident attorney on this board, let me educate you about the two Supreme Court decisions that eliminate that silly assertion from this discussion.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). This was the first landmark decision on the Second Amendment, and the Supreme Court's first opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment in terms of whether it confers citizens with an individual right to bear arms, or whether that right only applies to a "well regulated militia." The Supreme Court held the former, emphasizing that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes (such as self-defense within the home), and that D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated the rights conferred upon individuals by the Second Amendment.

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). This was the second landmark decision of the Supreme Court on the Second Amendment. There, the Supreme Court expanded upon its decision in Heller, and concluded that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" under the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states, thereby prohibiting states from enacting laws infringing upon that individual constitutional right.

That is the law of the land folks. Any attempt by the executive branch to declare a national emergency that would infringe upon that right would be promptly dispatched by the Supreme Court based on these existing precedents which unequivocally hold that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is an individual right and cannot be infringed by the federal government or the states.

Yes the supreme Court ruled that gun ownership is a right of the people. And in cases like South Dakota vs Dole and the Sebelus Obamacare case clearly stated that the budget was a right of Congress to control...

I hope we don't have a Supreme Court ruling that says in a national emergency declared by the president those Constitutional rights can be revoked.

No guarantees. It's a crap-shoot.

We have a Constitution. It is Express not Implied.

It's interpreted, which means that is neither express, nor implied, kumquat.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I've seen this statement made repeatedly on here and elsewhere: "Trump declaring a national emergency for border wall funding will lay the ground for the next Democrat president to declare a national emergency on guns."

Definitive answer -- No, it will not. As a resident attorney on this board, let me educate you about the two Supreme Court decisions that eliminate that silly assertion from this discussion.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). This was the first landmark decision on the Second Amendment, and the Supreme Court's first opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment in terms of whether it confers citizens with an individual right to bear arms, or whether that right only applies to a "well regulated militia." The Supreme Court held the former, emphasizing that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes (such as self-defense within the home), and that D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated the rights conferred upon individuals by the Second Amendment.

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). This was the second landmark decision of the Supreme Court on the Second Amendment. There, the Supreme Court expanded upon its decision in Heller, and concluded that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" under the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states, thereby prohibiting states from enacting laws infringing upon that individual constitutional right.

That is the law of the land folks. Any attempt by the executive branch to declare a national emergency that would infringe upon that right would be promptly dispatched by the Supreme Court based on these existing precedents which unequivocally hold that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is an individual right and cannot be infringed by the federal government or the states.

Wrong.

The comparison is that an emergency would be declared to allocate funds for research into gun crime and violence, or to allocate funds to the states to facilitate their updating the NICS database.

It wouldn’t have anything to do with placing restrictions on firearms.

That is not the way I have heard it stated aloud and in writing. Assume my post refers to those advocating for the possibility of a national emergency declaration that would serve to restrict gun ownership. If that is not your understanding/position, then this does not apply to you.

Perhaps you’ve misunderstood the statement; indeed, there’s nothing in the statement indicating that the next Democratic president would seek to declare an emergency pursuant to some sort of ‘gun control’ or ‘regulation’ – that’s pure inference on your part.

And it’s quite possible the statement is a rightwing lie – the lie that a Democratic president would seek to ‘confiscate’ guns.

Again, from whom exactly have you heard this statement?

If you’re referring to a comment made by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, then you might want to read her actual statement – nowhere does she advocate a restriction to owning firearms, or anything remotely in violation of the Second Amendment.

You SIMPLY AMAZE me with your abject IGNORANCE and STUPIDITY.... she is a gun grabber and she by damn sure did mean an effort to restrict firearms ownership or seizure of firearms. Thats her whole point.

 

[Aponi]

I've seen this statement made repeatedly on here and elsewhere: "Trump declaring a national emergency for border wall funding will lay the ground for the next Democrat president to declare a national emergency on guns."

Definitive answer -- No, it will not. As a resident attorney on this board, let me educate you about the two Supreme Court decisions that eliminate that silly assertion from this discussion.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). This was the first landmark decision on the Second Amendment, and the Supreme Court's first opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment in terms of whether it confers citizens with an individual right to bear arms, or whether that right only applies to a "well regulated militia." The Supreme Court held the former, emphasizing that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes (such as self-defense within the home), and that D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated the rights conferred upon individuals by the Second Amendment.

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). This was the second landmark decision of the Supreme Court on the Second Amendment. There, the Supreme Court expanded upon its decision in Heller, and concluded that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" under the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states, thereby prohibiting states from enacting laws infringing upon that individual constitutional right.

That is the law of the land folks. Any attempt by the executive branch to declare a national emergency that would infringe upon that right would be promptly dispatched by the Supreme Court based on these existing precedents which unequivocally hold that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is an individual right and cannot be infringed by the federal government or the states.

Demos like to think they could try rhat all i can say is good luck morons

 

[danielpalos]

I've seen this statement made repeatedly on here and elsewhere: "Trump declaring a national emergency for border wall funding will lay the ground for the next Democrat president to declare a national emergency on guns."

Definitive answer -- No, it will not. As a resident attorney on this board, let me educate you about the two Supreme Court decisions that eliminate that silly assertion from this discussion.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). This was the first landmark decision on the Second Amendment, and the Supreme Court's first opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment in terms of whether it confers citizens with an individual right to bear arms, or whether that right only applies to a "well regulated militia." The Supreme Court held the former, emphasizing that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes (such as self-defense within the home), and that D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated the rights conferred upon individuals by the Second Amendment.

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). This was the second landmark decision of the Supreme Court on the Second Amendment. There, the Supreme Court expanded upon its decision in Heller, and concluded that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" under the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states, thereby prohibiting states from enacting laws infringing upon that individual constitutional right.

That is the law of the land folks. Any attempt by the executive branch to declare a national emergency that would infringe upon that right would be promptly dispatched by the Supreme Court based on these existing precedents which unequivocally hold that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is an individual right and cannot be infringed by the federal government or the states.

Yes the supreme Court ruled that gun ownership is a right of the people. And in cases like South Dakota vs Dole and the Sebelus Obamacare case clearly stated that the budget was a right of Congress to control...

I hope we don't have a Supreme Court ruling that says in a national emergency declared by the president those Constitutional rights can be revoked.

No guarantees. It's a crap-shoot.

We have a Constitution. It is Express not Implied.

It's interpreted, which means that is neither express, nor implied, kumquat.

There is no interpretation for express words; we simply don't have to make up a fake implied power.

 

[Osiris-ODS]

It is a crap shoot on which way it will go. But remember, Supreme Court decisions aren't just a specific ruling but based on a ruling which tends to make a lot of waves. For example a state tax on a federal bank set precedent that all federal laws override state laws. And that the Federal government has powers not listed in the Constitution.

Their decision of if Trump's national emergency is legal would be based on them determining a National Emergency can override Constitutional powers. (Ie power to give right of spending to Congress or right of guns to citizens)..

Respectfully, your analogy is conflating apples and oranges.

The Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights -- the express purpose of the Bill of Rights is to list the specific fundamental rights that the government cannot threaten or take away. History note: the addition of the Bill of Rights was necessary in order for the states to agree to ratify the Constitution, at the insistence of the Anti-Federalists (those who advocated power remaining with state and local governments, rather than central government) who refused to approve the original draft of the Constitution without it. Those rights cannot be impinged, modified or legislated away by the states or federal government.

The Appropriations Clause (Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7) does not delineate any individual "right" of the people like the Second Amendment does. It is an integral part of the Constitution's separation of powers, and delegates the ‘Power of the Purse’ to the legislative branch. However, it has been amended many times by Congress over the years through various legislation that has substantially weakened the restrictions of the Appropriations Clause, some of which is the basis for the emergency declaration currently at issue. To wit, permanent (or "standing") appropriations, and indefinite appropriations.

See Principles of Federal Appropriations Law: Fourth Edition, Chapter 2, p13 (https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/675709.pdf)

A permanent appropriation is one that, "once made, is always available for specified purposes and does not require repeated action by Congress to authorize its use." Id. An indefinite appropriation is one that has no express limitation on the amount of money appropriated. Id. Thus, "a 'permanent indefinite' appropriation is open ended as to both period of availability and amount." Id. In other words, through these types of appropriations bills, Congress often issues "blank checks" for various purposes while retaining the authority to revoke the check through future budgetary legislation. The money Trump seeks to use to build the border wall is appropriated from the following:

• $1.4 billion from the currently approved budget
• $600 million from money seized from drug traffickers
• $2.5 billion from a defense department appropriations fund
• $3.5 billion appropriated from military construction projects

To that end, the Supreme Court has consistently and repeatedly refused to rule on cases involving separation of powers issues, including those brought by members of Congress challenging executive overreach via violation of the Appropriations Clause. See Sanchez-Espinoza v Reagan, 248 U.S. App. D.C. 146, 210 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (challenging the Reagan administration's covert use of funds to support the Contras in Nicaragua, in direct violation of the Boland Amendment). In dismissing these cases, federal courts typically emphasize that the legislature has the means necessary to remedy their grievances, i.e., by passing another bill. See Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 10 (D.C. Cir. 2000).

In sum, 1) these are two very different issues, and 2) any lawsuit filed in federal court challenging Trump's use of funds on a "national emergency" is almost certain to be dismissed by the Supreme Court (and more likely long before it even gets there).

 

[Claudette]

I've seen this statement made repeatedly on here and elsewhere: "Trump declaring a national emergency for border wall funding will lay the ground for the next Democrat president to declare a national emergency on guns."

Definitive answer -- No, it will not. As a resident attorney on this board, let me educate you about the two Supreme Court decisions that eliminate that silly assertion from this discussion.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). This was the first landmark decision on the Second Amendment, and the Supreme Court's first opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment in terms of whether it confers citizens with an individual right to bear arms, or whether that right only applies to a "well regulated militia." The Supreme Court held the former, emphasizing that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes (such as self-defense within the home), and that D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated the rights conferred upon individuals by the Second Amendment.

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). This was the second landmark decision of the Supreme Court on the Second Amendment. There, the Supreme Court expanded upon its decision in Heller, and concluded that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" under the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states, thereby prohibiting states from enacting laws infringing upon that individual constitutional right.

That is the law of the land folks. Any attempt by the executive branch to declare a national emergency that would infringe upon that right would be promptly dispatched by the Supreme Court based on these existing precedents which unequivocally hold that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is an individual right and cannot be infringed by the federal government or the states.

Yup. I'm not a lawyer but what you say is 100% correct.

The second amendment protects those owning guns and the right to bear arms.

 

[Norman]

I've seen this statement made repeatedly on here and elsewhere: "Trump declaring a national emergency for border wall funding will lay the ground for the next Democrat president to declare a national emergency on guns."

Definitive answer -- No, it will not. As a resident attorney on this board, let me educate you about the two Supreme Court decisions that eliminate that silly assertion from this discussion.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). This was the first landmark decision on the Second Amendment, and the Supreme Court's first opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment in terms of whether it confers citizens with an individual right to bear arms, or whether that right only applies to a "well regulated militia." The Supreme Court held the former, emphasizing that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes (such as self-defense within the home), and that D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated the rights conferred upon individuals by the Second Amendment.

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). This was the second landmark decision of the Supreme Court on the Second Amendment. There, the Supreme Court expanded upon its decision in Helcler, and concluded that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" under the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states, thereby prohibiting states from enacting laws infringing upon that individual constitutional right.

That is the law of the land folks. Any attempt by the executive branch to declare a national emergency that would infringe upon that right would be promptly dispatched by the Supreme Court based on these existing precedents which unequivocally hold that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is an individual right and cannot be infringed by the federal government or the states.

When someone declares a national emergency on guns... it will perhaps be even bigger emergency than the invasion. After the fact of course, but still...

 

[iceberg]

i'd think the best you could hope for in trying to call it that would be to make everyone come together and vote on whether or not to go through the constitutional processes it would take to change it.

 

[OldLady]

I've seen this statement made repeatedly on here and elsewhere: "Trump declaring a national emergency for border wall funding will lay the ground for the next Democrat president to declare a national emergency on guns."

Definitive answer -- No, it will not. As a resident attorney on this board, let me educate you about the two Supreme Court decisions that eliminate that silly assertion from this discussion.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). This was the first landmark decision on the Second Amendment, and the Supreme Court's first opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment in terms of whether it confers citizens with an individual right to bear arms, or whether that right only applies to a "well regulated militia." The Supreme Court held the former, emphasizing that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes (such as self-defense within the home), and that D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated the rights conferred upon individuals by the Second Amendment.

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). This was the second landmark decision of the Supreme Court on the Second Amendment. There, the Supreme Court expanded upon its decision in Heller, and concluded that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" under the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states, thereby prohibiting states from enacting laws infringing upon that individual constitutional right.

That is the law of the land folks. Any attempt by the executive branch to declare a national emergency that would infringe upon that right would be promptly dispatched by the Supreme Court based on these existing precedents which unequivocally hold that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is an individual right and cannot be infringed by the federal government or the states.

Wrong.

The comparison is that an emergency would be declared to allocate funds for research into gun crime and violence, or to allocate funds to the states to facilitate their updating the NICS database.

It wouldn’t have anything to do with placing restrictions on firearms.

And those are both areas which need funding.

 

[SandSquid]

It is a crap shoot on which way it will go. But remember, Supreme Court decisions aren't just a specific ruling but based on a ruling which tends to make a lot of waves. For example a state tax on a federal bank set precedent that all federal laws override state laws. And that the Federal government has powers not listed in the Constitution.

Their decision of if Trump's national emergency is legal would be based on them determining a National Emergency can override Constitutional powers. (Ie power to give right of spending to Congress or right of guns to citizens)..

Respectfully, your analogy is conflating apples and oranges.

The Second Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights -- the express purpose of the Bill of Rights is to list the specific fundamental rights that the government cannot threaten or take away. History note: the addition of the Bill of Rights was necessary in order for the states to agree to ratify the Constitution, at the insistence of the Anti-Federalists (those who advocated power remaining with state and local governments, rather than central government) who refused to approve the original draft of the Constitution without it. Those rights cannot be impinged, modified or legislated away by the states or federal government.

The Appropriations Clause (Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7) does not delineate any individual "right" of the people like the Second Amendment does. It is an integral part of the Constitution's separation of powers, and delegates the ‘Power of the Purse’ to the legislative branch. However, it has been amended many times by Congress over the years through various legislation that has substantially weakened the restrictions of the Appropriations Clause, some of which is the basis for the emergency declaration currently at issue. To wit, permanent (or "standing") appropriations, and indefinite appropriations.

See Principles of Federal Appropriations Law: Fourth Edition, Chapter 2, p13 (https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/675709.pdf)

A permanent appropriation is one that, "once made, is always available for specified purposes and does not require repeated action by Congress to authorize its use." Id. An indefinite appropriation is one that has no express limitation on the amount of money appropriated. Id. Thus, "a 'permanent indefinite' appropriation is open ended as to both period of availability and amount." Id. In other words, through these types of appropriations bills, Congress often issues "blank checks" for various purposes while retaining the authority to revoke the check through future budgetary legislation. The money Trump seeks to use to build the border wall is appropriated from the following:

• $1.4 billion from the currently approved budget
• $600 million from money seized from drug traffickers
• $2.5 billion from a defense department appropriations fund
• $3.5 billion appropriated from military construction projects

To that end, the Supreme Court has consistently and repeatedly refused to rule on cases involving separation of powers issues, including those brought by members of Congress challenging executive overreach via violation of the Appropriations Clause. See Sanchez-Espinoza v Reagan, 248 U.S. App. D.C. 146, 210 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (challenging the Reagan administration's covert use of funds to support the Contras in Nicaragua, in direct violation of the Boland Amendment). In dismissing these cases, federal courts typically emphasize that the legislature has the means necessary to remedy their grievances, i.e., by passing another bill. See Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 10 (D.C. Cir. 2000).

In sum, 1) these are two very different issues, and 2) any lawsuit filed in federal court challenging Trump's use of funds on a "national emergency" is almost certain to be dismissed by the Supreme Court (and more likely long before it even gets there).

Yes, the Bill of Rights are a part of the same Constitution as the right for Congress to "control the purse" as you put it. That right is for the people to have the ability to elect their Congressmen to control the Federal budget.

And while some say "Those rights cannot be impinged, modified or legislated away by the states or federal government.", that happens:

The 2nd amendment was modified under DC vs. Heller, which determined that it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

NYT vs. Sullivan determined Commercial free speech is less protected.

Colgrove vs. Battin modified the 7th amendment.

What defines "cruel and unusual punishment" has been modified quite a few times.


And I used South Dakota vs. Dole earlier. A case where Congress circumvented the 10th amendment of the bill of rights via invoking the Commerce Clause. Held up in court.


Now with DC vs. Heller, since the 2nd amendment doesn't protect all weapons, if they could prove that any firearm with capabilities of more than 1 shot between reloading are the cause of mass shootings, that would not violate the 2nd Amendment.

The 2nd amendment doesn't protect how the weapons are carried (end of concealed carry)

And the 2nd amendment doesn't protect people having guns for any purpose or anywhere (for example not allowed on any public property at all)

And it said the 2nd amendment doesn't protect laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms (imagine if a condition of selling a firearm was you would be liable for X dollars if that firearm was ever used in a crime?)

Idea's that all would effectively neuter the 2nd amendment, have a Supreme Court precedent on their side, and while Congress would never get the votes to pass them, all it would take is one President whether they approve or not.

I personally would rather Trump not open that can of worms.

 

[Cellblock2429]

I've seen this statement made repeatedly on here and elsewhere: "Trump declaring a national emergency for border wall funding will lay the ground for the next Democrat president to declare a national emergency on guns."

Definitive answer -- No, it will not. As a resident attorney on this board, let me educate you about the two Supreme Court decisions that eliminate that silly assertion from this discussion.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). This was the first landmark decision on the Second Amendment, and the Supreme Court's first opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment in terms of whether it confers citizens with an individual right to bear arms, or whether that right only applies to a "well regulated militia." The Supreme Court held the former, emphasizing that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes (such as self-defense within the home), and that D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated the rights conferred upon individuals by the Second Amendment.

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). This was the second landmark decision of the Supreme Court on the Second Amendment. There, the Supreme Court expanded upon its decision in Heller, and concluded that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" under the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states, thereby prohibiting states from enacting laws infringing upon that individual constitutional right.

That is the law of the land folks. Any attempt by the executive branch to declare a national emergency that would infringe upon that right would be promptly dispatched by the Supreme Court based on these existing precedents which unequivocally hold that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is an individual right and cannot be infringed by the federal government or the states.

/——/ Thank you, Counselor. Unfortunately, that won’t stop the gun grabbers from trying.