Re: Ove Interest?

On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 17:58:51 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

On 2/18/2025 5:13 PM, cyclintom wrote:

On Tue Feb 18 10:29:38 2025 AMuzi  wrote:

>
There is no such order.
>
Executive orders can describe the means, methods and scope
of federal employees' work, but are not a substitute for
legislation. (or ought not to be at any rate, despite press
releases)

 
 
 
 
 From the CATO Institute:
"President Trump signed an executive order aimed at protecting Second Amendment rights, directing a review of federal policies that may infringe on these rights. This order seeks to reverse regulations established during the Biden Administration that are seen as limiting gun ownership and use."
 
The Supreme Court has aready deemed most gun control laws unconstitutional and states just like Krygowski simply ignore them. However, prosecutors already know enough not to try and prosecute anyone under these laws. The case law is settled.
 
Now, you were saying that there was no such executive order? Why didn't you simply look it up?

>
The text immediately above is mostly correct (SCOTUS parses
these questions more finely than you or I would prefer),
mostly sensible and in general agreement with what I wrote
above yours.
>
Prosecutors continue, however to prosecute firearms charges.
Not all regulations, and certainly not all jurisdictions and
not for all violators under similar circumstances but there
are prosecutions.
>
What you wrote a few hours ago however is different:
>
"Executive Order 2A - The 2nd Amendment has priority over
any state law concerning the 2nd Amendment. You have lost
and you simply won't admit it because you side with New York
City and voter fraud in California."
>
You most likely meant EO #14206 (there is no "2A")
>
https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders/donald-trump/2025
>
Here is the full text (it's short):
>
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/02/12/2025-02636/protecting-second-amendment-rights
>
>
Mr Trump did not order the Supremacy Clause. That was James
Madison (Article VI, Clause 2):
>
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which
shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made,
or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges
in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the
Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding."
>
What Mr Trump ordered, as I wrote, pertains to the "means,
methods and scope" of Federal regulators, which is well
within Presidential duties.  He made no statement whatsoever
about States' laws because there's no need. See Madison's
words above, as applied by the 101st Airborne in Little
Rock, 1958 for example.

What's needed is more challenges to the state and local governments
that don't obey the Supremacy Clause.

--
C'est bon
Soloman