Pelosi To GOP: A Democratic President Could Declare National Emergency On Guns

[SandSquid]

Pelosi gives voters heads up your guns could be in Jeopardy if the next president is a Democrat

Pelosi warns GOP: Next president could declare national emergency on guns

When is enough going to be enough all they do is fight amongst the parties and never get nothing accomplished that needs to be done nothing that they're hired to do they do nothing but bicker bicker bicker with each other

One cannot declare a national emergency against a constitutional right. There would be but one thing in jeopardy should any president make such a stupid move.

In terms of the parties, expect little since there is no longer any real common ground, and the Democrats are no longer American.

Exactly. And we've set precedent that limitations on types of arms is ok, and we both know that there is no constitutional right for gun makers or ammunition makers to not be held fiscally responsible if their weapons are used in murder. Both could easily be used in a national emergency if this pandora's box is opened.

 

[SandSquid]

Like that supersedes the 2nd Amendment, duh.

Doesn't have to do that. Already have precedent laws can restrict the types of arms people can carry (assault weapons ban, you can't build a nuke and say the 2nd amendment protects it).

So obviously a huge restriction on gun types, magazine sizes, etc would be available.

The big one that I see would be a "national emergency" saying that guns are 2200% more deadly in the US than illegal immigrants and then not touch the 1st amendment, but create a clear and simple path for families of victims to hold gun makers and ammunition makers financially responsible. That doesn't touch anyone's right to own. But it would end the gun industry for private sale in the US.

That's what scares me about declaring an emergency to take away money from our military and build a wall where the majority of illegal immigration and drug smuggling are not occurring.

1. Prove that any gun type or magazine causes deaths. That's obviated by the gang violence deaths and other gun related deaths. In England murders by knife happen more than guns, you going to outlaw knives? Your 2200% is bullshit when you factor in the illicit drugs coming in thru the southern border, see graph below. A true national emergency.

2. Just because 90% of the drugs SEIZED are at the POAs doesn't mean that's where the drugs enter the US. My brother was on the southern border in the AF and they tracked the cartel drug planes coming into the US but were not allowed to work with the DEA or law enforcement. The Border Patrol knows where they need more wall, and Trump will get it for them, in spite of the traitorous democrats.

Agree 1000% which is why the DEA 2018 release on drug trafficing is such an important read, because it goes into not just where we are catching drugs, but also where they are coming into the US from.

And they are ports of entry, through semi's and POVs, spice mostly from China. Aircraft, drones, catapults and tunnels.

This is the DEA report under the Trump administration saying that the border area's where trump wants his wall is not the issue.

Just an example on one of the most dangerous drugs... "Mexican TCOs control the movement of heroin that enters the United States across the SWB, until it reaches its destination in cities all over the United States. The majority of the flow is through POVs entering the United States at legal ports of entry, followed by tractor-trailers, where the heroin is co-mingled with legal goods"

So your belief is that since the DEA is saying the majority is arriving through POV's at legal ports of entry, you want to turn the focus to a wall in the area the DEA says isn't the major issue? Do you work for a cartel with that logic?

Like you say, they know where they need more help. They spelled it out. Ports of entry.

 

[SandSquid]

Like that supersedes the 2nd Amendment, duh.

Doesn't have to do that. Already have precedent laws can restrict the types of arms people can carry (assault weapons ban, you can't build a nuke and say the 2nd amendment protects it).

So obviously a huge restriction on gun types, magazine sizes, etc would be available.

The big one that I see would be a "national emergency" saying that guns are 2200% more deadly in the US than illegal immigrants and then not touch the 1st amendment, but create a clear and simple path for families of victims to hold gun makers and ammunition makers financially responsible. That doesn't touch anyone's right to own. But it would end the gun industry for private sale in the US.

That's what scares me about declaring an emergency to take away money from our military and build a wall where the majority of illegal immigration and drug smuggling are not occurring.

1. Prove that any gun type or magazine causes deaths. That's obviated by the gang violence deaths and other gun related deaths. In England murders by knife happen more than guns, you going to outlaw knives? Your 2200% is bullshit when you factor in the illicit drugs coming in thru the southern border, see graph below. A true national emergency.

2. Just because 90% of the drugs SEIZED are at the POAs doesn't mean that's where the drugs enter the US. My brother was on the southern border in the AF and they tracked the cartel drug planes coming into the US but were not allowed to work with the DEA or law enforcement. The Border Patrol knows where they need more wall, and Trump will get it for them, in spite of the traitorous democrats.

And yes, the FBI keeps statistics on types of firearms used in deaths. I guess if you wanted to use the UK and it's drastically lower death rates with strong restrictions on firearms you could.

 

[SandSquid]

And great point on the drug deaths. And what do we do when we find a drug dealer in the US? Off to prison with him

What do we do when we find a company owner trafficing with illegal immigrants? Trump has built his empire on causing the exact thing he now says is a national emergency. Should we jail company owners like him who have for decades offered illegal immigrants a reward for breaking into the US?

 

[Dragonlady]

Pelosi gives voters heads up your guns could be in Jeopardy if the next president is a Democrat

Pelosi warns GOP: Next president could declare national emergency on guns

When is enough going to be enough all they do is fight amongst the parties and never get nothing accomplished that needs to be done nothing that they're hired to do they do nothing but bicker bicker bicker with each other

It is very exasperating. We are boiling ourselves in our own planet, destroying our food chain from the bottom up and these clowns are thinking of every clever way they can to be top dog in DC.

We are boiling ourselves in our own planet,

Of course nothing that just happened with the extreme FREEZE that set unprecedented records has any effect on our Boiling? Of course a liberals brain has boiled so much that there isnt any grey matter left, but that is to be expected...

You’re about to see what happens when an authoritarian tries to usurp the authority of the People.

Nancy Pelosi is going to squeeze Trumps balls until he screams.

 

[SandSquid]

Like that supersedes the 2nd Amendment, duh.

Doesn't have to do that. Already have precedent laws can restrict the types of arms people can carry (assault weapons ban, you can't build a nuke and say the 2nd amendment protects it).

So obviously a huge restriction on gun types, magazine sizes, etc would be available.

The big one that I see would be a "national emergency" saying that guns are 2200% more deadly in the US than illegal immigrants and then not touch the 1st amendment, but create a clear and simple path for families of victims to hold gun makers and ammunition makers financially responsible. That doesn't touch anyone's right to own. But it would end the gun industry for private sale in the US.

That's what scares me about declaring an emergency to take away money from our military and build a wall where the majority of illegal immigration and drug smuggling are not occurring.

1. Prove that any gun type or magazine causes deaths. That's obviated by the gang violence deaths and other gun related deaths. In England murders by knife happen more than guns, you going to outlaw knives? Your 2200% is bullshit when you factor in the illicit drugs coming in thru the southern border, see graph below. A true national emergency.

2. Just because 90% of the drugs SEIZED are at the POEs doesn't mean that's where the drugs enter the US. My brother was on the southern border in the AF and they tracked the cartel drug planes coming into the US but were not allowed to work with the DEA or law enforcement. The Border Patrol knows where they need more wall, and Trump will get it for them, in spite of the traitorous democrats.

And that's a great showing of the drug problem. So knowing that Opioids are the deadliest, and the majority of those deaths come from prescription drug abuse, please tell me how the wall solves this.

Fastest growing of them is Fentanyl... Of what we found crossing the southern border they are very poor quality (according to the DEA saying 7% purity on average). The prime stuff is coming in shipments from China and through our norther border (90% purity). How does this wall help there?

And the other Big one... Heroin, which as you saw the DEA says ports of entry are the top method.

You are literally making the point. Listen to the DEA. They keep telling us these issues are ports of entry. Again, and again and again. That's better than just putting on a blindfold and saying "well I think it's here based on a lack of facts" and building a wall over North Dakota and hoping that solves it.

 

[Claudette]

The House speaker warned Republicans about the precedent Trump could set by declaring a national emergency to secure border wall funding.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday warned about the dangerous precedent President Donald Trump could set if he declares a national emergency to secure funding for his border wall.

“I know the Republicans have some unease about it, no matter what they say,” Pelosi told reporters at the Capitol. “Because if the president can declare an emergency on something that he has created as an emergency, an illusion that he wants to convey, just think of what a president with different values can present to the American people.”

Pelosi said the situation at the U.S.-Mexico border doesn’t constitute an “emergency,” as Trump has framed it, but rather a “humanitarian challenge.”

“You want to talk about a national emergency?” Pelosi said. “Let’s talk about today, the one-year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America. That’s a national emergency.”

Pelosi was referring to the Feb. 14, 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. She noted that a Democratic president could declare a national emergency on gun violence and warned Republicans to carefully consider the precedent Trump would set by using his executive power to override Congress.

“Democratic presidents can declare emergencies as well,” Pelosi said. “So the precedent that the president is setting here is something that should be met with great unease and dismay by the Republicans.”

More: Pelosi To GOP: A Democratic President Could Declare National Emergency On Guns

What goes around comes around. Go Nancy!

The 2nd Amendment dumbass.

 

[pismoe]

Like that supersedes the 2nd Amendment, duh.

------------------------------------ i like your reasoning , hope it sticks Kyzr .

 

[AntonToo]

The House speaker warned Republicans about the precedent Trump could set by declaring a national emergency to secure border wall funding.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday warned about the dangerous precedent President Donald Trump could set if he declares a national emergency to secure funding for his border wall.

“I know the Republicans have some unease about it, no matter what they say,” Pelosi told reporters at the Capitol. “Because if the president can declare an emergency on something that he has created as an emergency, an illusion that he wants to convey, just think of what a president with different values can present to the American people.”

Pelosi said the situation at the U.S.-Mexico border doesn’t constitute an “emergency,” as Trump has framed it, but rather a “humanitarian challenge.”

“You want to talk about a national emergency?” Pelosi said. “Let’s talk about today, the one-year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America. That’s a national emergency.”

Pelosi was referring to the Feb. 14, 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. She noted that a Democratic president could declare a national emergency on gun violence and warned Republicans to carefully consider the precedent Trump would set by using his executive power to override Congress.

“Democratic presidents can declare emergencies as well,” Pelosi said. “So the precedent that the president is setting here is something that should be met with great unease and dismay by the Republicans.”

More: Pelosi To GOP: A Democratic President Could Declare National Emergency On Guns

What goes around comes around. Go Nancy!

There is no provision in the US Constitution that prohibits a President from building a wall.

Ignorant nonsence.

There is ABSOLUTELY a provision in Constitution against a President using funds for the wall without congressional apropriation.

Congress controlls the spending - PERIOD.

The President will use existing funds, not new funds. He will transfer funds from related areas to the wall. Perfectly legal and constitutional.

Existing funds is what CONGRESS APPROPRIATED.

By spending it elsewhere Trump is unconstitutionally overriding Congress

 

[Pilot1]

So what you are saying is this national emergency is caused by the American business owners who hire illegal immigrants and give them a reward for breaking the law.

So since this is a massive enough breaking of the law by them, what do we do with those company owners like the owner of Trump golf clubs, Trump Modeling, Trump Tower, and Mar-a-Lago, who's decades of breaking the law have caused this emergency? Jail time? I mean one of them just last year was literally hiding their illegal workers from the US Gov't.

So you are obviously just biased against Trump. Stop sputtering about U.S. businesses. They are not the only reason illegals come here. I don't agree with businesses employing illegals. We need to enforce the existing laws against that. Illegals come here to scam benefits, steal identities, and have kids that stay.

 

[Pilot1]

The Illegal Alien invasion is ILLEGAL, and a huge security, and safety risk to the American people. The legal right to own a carry guns is a natural right protected by our LAW. So Pelosi is wrong as usual. Crazy too.

 

[pismoe]

Like that supersedes the 2nd Amendment, duh.

Doesn't have to do that. Already have precedent laws can restrict the types of arms people can carry (assault weapons ban, you can't build a nuke and say the 2nd amendment protects it).

So obviously a huge restriction on gun types, magazine sizes, etc would be available.

The big one that I see would be a "national emergency" saying that guns are 2200% more deadly in the US than illegal immigrants and then not touch the 1st amendment, but create a clear and simple path for families of victims to hold gun makers and ammunition makers financially responsible. That doesn't touch anyone's right to own. But it would end the gun industry for private sale in the US.

That's what scares me about declaring an emergency to take away money from our military and build a wall where the majority of illegal immigration and drug smuggling are not occurring.

-------------------------------- can't build a NUKE eh [chuckle] !! Go TRUMP , build that WALL !!

 

[AntonToo]

...Ignorant nonsence. There is ABSOLUTELY a provision in Constitution against a President using funds for the wall without congressional apropriation. Congress controlls the spending - PERIOD.

Au contraire... it is neither ignorant nor nonsense...

The context was a comparison to using a State of Emergency to seize legally-owned firearms...

The US Constitution prevents a President from "infringing" upon the right to bear arms... explicitly.

The US Constitution does NOT prevent a President from building a wall, explicitly or implicitly.

To put a Wall on the same par as firearms in this comparative context, there would need to be a passage in the Constitution similar to...

"An unimpeded flow of poor, uneducated foreign peasantry being necessary to both Big Business robber-barons and grateful future partisan voters within Inner City Ghetto-Plantations, the right of the Elites to an open border shall not be infringed."​

The closest we come to any such bar to wall construction would be the idea that Congress is accorded the Power of the Purse.

That is an implicit control of such specific construction - embedded within control of the Purse - not explicit, like the right to bear arms.

You are correct in observing that the money for any such wall construction would ordinarily be controlled by Congress, however...

If the Creature in the Oval Office is upheld in his declaration by a 5-4 (or 5-3?) SCOTUS, even that safeguard is overridden.

Hell... he's been packing not only the Supreme Court, but the Appellate Courts as well in recent months... hasn't he?

Neither ignorant, nor nonsense.

Idiot, there is absolutely no difference between a direct or general categorical language.

Constitution EXPLICITLY gives the spending aproriation power to Congress and by unilaterally appropriating funds for the wall Trump would be breaking the law.

Otherwise presidents would just move the money around at will - DUH

 

[22lcidw]

Like that supersedes the 2nd Amendment, duh.

Doesn't have to do that. Already have precedent laws can restrict the types of arms people can carry (assault weapons ban, you can't build a nuke and say the 2nd amendment protects it).

So obviously a huge restriction on gun types, magazine sizes, etc would be available.

The big one that I see would be a "national emergency" saying that guns are 2200% more deadly in the US than illegal immigrants and then not touch the 1st amendment, but create a clear and simple path for families of victims to hold gun makers and ammunition makers financially responsible. That doesn't touch anyone's right to own. But it would end the gun industry for private sale in the US.

That's what scares me about declaring an emergency to take away money from our military and build a wall where the majority of illegal immigration and drug smuggling are not occurring.

You know what would be funny? A Soviet style government and the treatment of everyone the same way. The communists are taking over and the ones who did it will slinker out to safety.

 

[kyzr]

Like that supersedes the 2nd Amendment, duh.

Doesn't have to do that. Already have precedent laws can restrict the types of arms people can carry (assault weapons ban, you can't build a nuke and say the 2nd amendment protects it).

So obviously a huge restriction on gun types, magazine sizes, etc would be available.

The big one that I see would be a "national emergency" saying that guns are 2200% more deadly in the US than illegal immigrants and then not touch the 1st amendment, but create a clear and simple path for families of victims to hold gun makers and ammunition makers financially responsible. That doesn't touch anyone's right to own. But it would end the gun industry for private sale in the US.

That's what scares me about declaring an emergency to take away money from our military and build a wall where the majority of illegal immigration and drug smuggling are not occurring.

1. Prove that any gun type or magazine causes deaths. That's obviated by the gang violence deaths and other gun related deaths. In England murders by knife happen more than guns, you going to outlaw knives? Your 2200% is bullshit when you factor in the illicit drugs coming in thru the southern border, see graph below. A true national emergency.

2. Just because 90% of the drugs SEIZED are at the POEs doesn't mean that's where the drugs enter the US. My brother was on the southern border in the AF and they tracked the cartel drug planes coming into the US but were not allowed to work with the DEA or law enforcement. The Border Patrol knows where they need more wall, and Trump will get it for them, in spite of the traitorous democrats.

And that's a great showing of the drug problem. So knowing that Opioids are the deadliest, and the majority of those deaths come from prescription drug abuse, please tell me how the wall solves this.

Fastest growing of them is Fentanyl... Of what we found crossing the southern border they are very poor quality (according to the DEA saying 7% purity on average). The prime stuff is coming in shipments from China and through our norther border (90% purity). How does this wall help there?

And the other Big one... Heroin, which as you saw the DEA says ports of entry are the top method.

You are literally making the point. Listen to the DEA. They keep telling us these issues are ports of entry. Again, and again and again. That's better than just putting on a blindfold and saying "well I think it's here based on a lack of facts" and building a wall over North Dakota and hoping that solves it.

1. Provide a link proving that the majority of opioid deaths come from legal prescriptions

2. The DEA says "90% of drugs SEIZED is at the POEs". No one knows how much illicit drug traffic there is in total.

3. I believe in an "all of the above" solution. More technology to detect drugs crossing at the POEs. Then we need more wall to stop trafficking between POEs. Then we need a coordinated effort between the military and law enforcement to stop the cartel planes, submarines, boats, tunnels, and other means of drug transportation.

4. Don't forget to address human trafficking as well as drug trafficking.

 

[DGS49]

Where are Journalists on points like this? Pelosi and Schumer have reverted to blatant lies and craziness, yet again.

They call this "illegal" and "unconstitutional." It is neither. And that is not my opinion; it is fact. The declaration of a "national emergency" is clearly within the President's legitimate authority under both statute and the Constitution.

They don't like it. Fine. The have the ability to introduce new laws or changes to existing laws that would make it more difficult for a future president to do this. That is their prerogative.

And for journalists to repeat these lies and absurdities without pointing out that they are false...well, I guess they only do that when this President says something that they can portray as out of bounds.

 

[BULLDOG]

Pelosi gives voters heads up your guns could be in Jeopardy if the next president is a Democrat

Pelosi warns GOP: Next president could declare national emergency on guns

Another dumb move by Pelosi (if that is true).

Our political leaders have reduced themselves to using playground antics.

Trump is the one who is driving this particular tactic. If he can get away with it, why shouldn't anyone else?

 

[Pilot1]

Nobody says legal citizens have to comply with ILLEGAL laws. If the Democrats want to take legally owned guns, there would be Civil Disobedience, and non-compliance.

 

[Lysistrata]

What is missing from all of this "debate" is just whom do these people who are in love with their guns, of all types and sizes and magazines, want to shoot.

My father had guns, at least one pistol, rifles, and I shot them. But he also taught me never to aim them at a living being except in dire circumstances.

Now we have 2nd Amendment crazies, pretending that evil people are invading us, coming in through our doors and windows! This is NOT actually occurring.

Just whom do these gun-crazies want to shoot?

 

[candycorn]

Pelosi gives voters heads up your guns could be in Jeopardy if the next president is a Democrat

Pelosi warns GOP: Next president could declare national emergency on guns

Another dumb move by Pelosi (if that is true).

Our political leaders have reduced themselves to using playground antics.

Trump is the one who is driving this particular tactic. If he can get away with it, why shouldn't anyone else?

You can’t expect better from the blob, you can and should from a Liberal