Kamala Harris said if she is elected president, she will give congress 100 days to come up with gun control legislation. If Congress doesn’t, she will issue executive orders starting with national background checks and a semi-automatic ban on high capacity magazines. My question is can she do this? Plus where is the outcry from saying executive orders like when Trump was denounced for saying he was going to issue executive orders on building a wall.

I read this. She's talking about directing the BATFE to do her bidding by executive orders.

Absolutely no constitutional authority to do so.
Trump, however, exercised his constitutional authority as Commander in Chief of the armed forces when he ordered the DOD to construct the wall.

Genuinely curious, how does this differ from the bump stock ban?

Federal just ruled magazine ban was unconstitutional just a couple weeks ago

let her keep blabbing this nonsense ..she will go down for sure...Trump will win again )

Yep^^^^^

Thanks goodness that nearly all of the Democrat presidential candidates are far left/way off base with their agendas.

If they keep it up...Trump is gonna win in 2020 by a landslide. I love it!

MAGA!

She already went down
How do you think she got where she is.

I wouldn't worry about much of anything she says. She's not going to get the nomination for president anyway.

If Trump can ban bump-stocks by executive order, then maybe a Dem could ban "assault rifles" the same way.

Jim

Problem with you statement is James, Trump didn't do as your claiming.

The Judge Roger Benitez ruling in CA?

Yes but I'm sure CA will challenge the ruling

Yes, I believe they already have or at least indicated they were going to.

Judge issues stay on ruling reversing CA’s high cap magazine ban.

Published April 06, 2019

A federal judge on Friday agreed to halt the implementation of his ruling last week that struck down a California law prohibiting large-capacity firearms magazines while the state prepares to appeal his original decision.

U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez issued the stay at the request of California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, whose office will challenge Benitez's March 29 ruling in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal, the Sacramento Bee reported.

That means California gun owners are still not allowed to buy magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition while the case goes through the judicial process.

“The court understands that strong emotions are felt by people of good will on both sides of the constitutional and social policy questions,” Benitez wrote in his reverse order. “The court understands that thoughtful and law-abiding citizens can and do firmly hold competing opinions on firearm magazine restrictions. These concerns auger in favor of judicial deliberation. There is an immeasurable societal benefit of maintaining the immediate status quo while the process of judicial review takes place.”

In striking down the magazine ban, Benitez cited a home invasion where a woman used the extra rounds to kill an attacker and two other cases where women ran of bullets. He said the ban violated Californians’ Second Amendment rights to own firearms.

The law has made it illegal to buy or sell such magazines since 2000, but those who had them before were grandfathered in.

The ruling led to an advertising blitz by some gun manufacturers. Gun maker Berretta promoted an online discount in connection to the ruling, the Bee reported.

Becerra said lifting the ban would lead to a surge in large-capacity gun magazines into the state.

“It’s clear that there are those who are now trying to flood the state of California with what were until this decision, illegal high-capacity magazines, the type of magazines that are used in firearms to create the mass shootings that we’ve seen throughout this country,” Becerra said at a news conference.

Isn't she the same one that wants to legalize prostitution?

Secondary career if the politics thing did not work out!

What's the difference? Each sell themselves.

Trump playing chess. Everyone else s playing checkers.

Letting unconstitutional stuff slide by to satisfy communist Democrat party while stacking courts with judges that will declare it unconstitutional?

Lol

Wins on both sides?

Yes, he did. https://lasvegassun.com/news/2018/dec/03/trumps-executive-order-banning-bump-stocks-is-a-po/

Or Google it yourself.

Jim

No James, he did not. Those reporters are full of it.

Try a Google on Trumps Feb 20th memorandum on bumpstocks. He urged the ATF to ban them, which they wrote a new regulation to do so. An executive order it was not.

Since the BATF is part of the Executive Branch and the POTUS is their Big Boss, it has the effect of him doing it himself, don't it ?

What goes around comes around every time a president dem or rep uses the executive order or some other extreme power or abuse of the same the other party does it more so and to extreme and we loose what the founding fathers intended the government to use checks and balance of power. Executive power should be used for a very extreme event and not for a party or presidents personal wishes. As far as Harris I doubt she will get to even close to the finish line. I have heard from a lot of demorats she is to liberal for the most part and even for them to much give away programs.

Build the wall/keep your guns and mags......vote Trump.

Yes,

The difference is in what is required to change them.

Hopefully she gets run down by an illegal with a matricula card for a licence

Fixed it for ya.

She can’t exceultive order to change an amendment. The Supreme Court will over turn it, then charge her with abusing her power. Dems are trying to charge trump with all that stuff but can’t becauae he hasn’t done anything wrong. It’s all talk.

Bump stocks aren’t guns. They are a gun assesory. Big difference in banning an optional stock and a entire line of guns that have already been proven in the Supreme Court to be protected under the 2nd amendment.

I hope the Democratic candidate doesn't go for gun control, or he's putting my support at risk.

I may have to vote for a third party candidate again.

Jim

James I know you are not naive, of course the next Democrat Party endorsed candidate for POTS will be in favor of more gun control. To think otherwise is being obtuse

One can always hope.

It wasn't long ago that the Dems outside urban areas were supportive of gun rights. What happened to those guys? I want one of them to win the nomination.

The Dems are swinging left, when if they'd only swing toward the middle, they'd capture the White House in 2020.

Jim

Zell Miller died.

I had high hopes that under the duck we could restore recognition that our right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed .

It's time for the old school Democrats to realize the party left them ,

Can you name one Democratic presidential candidate currently in the pack that is pro gun? Or even one that is not running on an anti-2A platform?

I don’t suppose that matters much to a guy who has proudly proclaimed that he will vote for, “any Democrat with a pulse.”

Or maybe you’re just trolling for attention again?

This

Joe Biden just announced by video he is now a candidate. Will he be the nominee? He already demonstrated his anti-gun views but I believe not as far left on gun control as the other candidates. To keep up with the others, he will probably have to become more anti-gun.

They will see that Joe won't get the nod the same way they took it away from Sanders! Just look at how they turned on Creepy Joe after he got good numbers it IA!

But, they said his announcement made him the new front runner. I don't think it matters which one gets the nod. They all will be anti-gun; some worse than others.

It's the same thing . you are not fooling anyone with your bs

If it's a democrat, he or she is for gun control.

And been that way for 50 years.

No need for anything but a shotgun :

Full of crap.You already said you would vote for any democrat with a pulse,,,or something along them lines.Whan are you and ocassio getting hitched?