# If declaring national emergencies becomes a thing, what kinds of NEs could the democrats do **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 16, 2019, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-declaring-national-emergencies-becomes-a-thing-what-kinds-of-nes-could-the-democrats-do/829664 "2019-02-16T13:51:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2019, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-declaring-national-emergencies-becomes-a-thing-what-kinds-of-nes-could-the-democrats-do/829664/81 "2019-02-18T00:31:27Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Yes, but that would just result in pissing gun owners off, not in reducing violent crime. I thought it was established that facts didn’t matter when it came to emergency declarations, in the age of Trump. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2019, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-declaring-national-emergencies-becomes-a-thing-what-kinds-of-nes-could-the-democrats-do/829664/82 "2019-02-18T00:59:30Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Yeah “the Inventor” came up with a patent then released it. It was a ploy. Every gun manufacturer sez it isnt feasible. Totally bogus. You will have to pardon my skepticism when you are pointing at the gun manufacturers on this, and not likely to be bogus as the courts disagree with your say so here. > [@DrDeth](#): > > The lead ban was perfectly reasonable. Needed, even. > > The M855 ammo had nothing to do with Obama, and banned almost no ammo at all, and after a public outcry they rolled it back. Of course, the point was indeed to remark on how bogus the outrage of gun owners was. It was manufactured anger. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2019, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-declaring-national-emergencies-becomes-a-thing-what-kinds-of-nes-could-the-democrats-do/829664/83 "2019-02-18T01:09:07Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > You will have to pardon my skepticism when you are pointing at the gun manufacturers on this, and not likely to be bogus as the courts disagree with your say so here. > … The courts dont disagree. They just said that the ban was Constitutional. They didnt rule on it’s feasibility. So, you’re a gun maker. You then decide to give up on the single largest market in the nation- because why? I mean, not even a small niche gun maker has moved into the vacuum. And those guys do like their money. ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2019, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-declaring-national-emergencies-becomes-a-thing-what-kinds-of-nes-could-the-democrats-do/829664/84 "2019-02-18T01:13:46Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > There are 300 million guns in the USA. A few less of new imported models wont do anything. useless. And adding 4-5 million a year to that number is a good thing why? Even over a single 4-year presidential term, that’s 15-20 million guns that aren’t in the U.S. > [@DrDeth](#): > > Yes, 30% of American households REPORTED owning a gun. When they added in "refusers’ ( but not respondents who simply lied, as many would) it came to 35%. That more than 1/3 of Americans or 100 Million. Please show your math. There are about 126 million households in the U.S., averaging 1.94 adults each. If thirty percent of those households own guns, that’s 38 million households or 73 million adults. However, many millions of those are people who don’t own a gun themselves but merely live with a gun owner; those millions may or may not be very interested in gun issues. Even changing that to 42 percent of households yields 102 million adults who live in a household where somebody owns a gun, not 102 million people who own a gun themselves. > [@DrDeth](#): > > and this: \*According to the 2017 Pew study, 30% of Americans own guns themselves (12 points lower than the 42% who live in households with guns). For Gallup, it was 29% (13 points lower than the 42% who live in households with guns). \* Both of these are American ADULTS, not all Americans. Out of 253 million adults, those higher estimates come to no more than 80 million. > [@DrDeth](#): > > There are many reasons for asking for such a receivership, such as not trusting a caretaker with funds. If you are incapable, your caretaker is very high on the preference list to become your representative payee, so asking for a representative payee because you don’t trust your caretaker is a move that doesn’t make much sense. > [@DrDeth](#): > > if we dont want people with mental issues owning guns, then take them to a judge, and using _Due Process_- the American way- declare them so. Okay, great. What government agency are you planning to give this duty to, and where’s the money coming from? Most states have no such agency or process. Getting somebody declared legally incompetent is a different (and expensive) process that has far more impacts on the person so declared (you lose voting rights in most states, for example). We already have a process, with legal safeguards and due process built in, to establish incapacity to manage their benefit. ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2019, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-declaring-national-emergencies-becomes-a-thing-what-kinds-of-nes-could-the-democrats-do/829664/85 "2019-02-18T01:31:21Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > So, you’re a gun maker. You then decide to give up on the single largest market in the nation- because why? I mean, not even a small niche gun maker has moved into the vacuum. And those guys do like their money. What are you considering as the largest single market in the nation? That sure ain’t California: gun ownership rates there are among the lowest in the U.S. For example, in 2018 NICS did 1.2 million background checks for California gun transfers, and 1.57 million for Texas ([source](https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/nics_firearm_checks_-_month_year_by_state.pdf/view)), even though California requires almost all transfers to include a background check and Texas does not. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2019, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-declaring-national-emergencies-becomes-a-thing-what-kinds-of-nes-could-the-democrats-do/829664/86 "2019-02-18T03:25:14Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > The courts dont disagree. They just said that the ban was Constitutional. They didnt rule on it’s feasibility. You also need to be aware that before that became a law in California gun right proponents paid a fee to extend the patent for microstamping, that was to prevent the patent to lapse as one requirement of the law was that the manufacturers should be unencumbered by patent restrictions. Point being here that if it was bogus… well there should not had been any need to delay that technology as it would indeed had been found to be a failure, however independent tests showed that it was feasible. Even the counter research I have seen noticed that more research was needed regarding the levels of success, but not a denial of how feasible the technology is. As I have seen the reports, nothing is perfect indeed, and more recent reviews show me that while it is not 100% effective, a recent paper from the Seton Hall Law Journal checked the pro and con research and concluded that: [https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1682&context=shlr](https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1682&context=shlr) (PDF) > [@](#): > > On the whole, microstamping is an imperfect yet feasible technology that requires more research.249 While a better understanding of its capabilities and costs is needed, the goal should be towards improvement, understanding, and implementation rather than complete abandonment. In an imperfect world, full of imperfect people, facing an imperfect problem, a perfect solution does not exist. But a feasible solution? The answer points towards yes. > > Despite the often heated and divisive nature of the firearms debate, microstamping offers grounds for common cause between both sides. > [@DrDeth](#): > > So, you’re a gun maker. You then decide to give up on the single largest market in the nation- because why? I mean, not even a small niche gun maker has moved into the vacuum. And those guys do like their money. Now I wonder why you ignore what took place years before, gun manufacturers that decided to support a new law got to be boycotted almost to death. Sure they like their money; but that assholery from some gun owners, that was influenced by the propaganda coming from very unsavory sources, does not lead to progress. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2019, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-declaring-national-emergencies-becomes-a-thing-what-kinds-of-nes-could-the-democrats-do/829664/87 "2019-02-18T05:35:04Z")
> [@slash2k](#): > > And adding 4-5 million a year to that number is a good thing why? Even over a single 4-year presidential term, that’s 15-20 million guns that aren’t in the U.S. > > Please show your math… > > … > … > > If you are incapable, your caretaker is very high on the preference list to become your representative payee, so asking for a representative payee because you don’t trust your caretaker is a move that doesn’t make much sense. > > Okay, great. What government agency are you planning to give this duty to, and where’s the money coming from? Most states have no such agency or process. Getting somebody declared legally incompetent is a different (and expensive) process that has far more impacts on the person so declared (you lose voting rights in most states, for example). We already have a process, with legal safeguards and due process built in, to establish incapacity to manage their benefit. No, that’s only if no guns are _sold_ in the USA. Most guns bought in the USA are made here. In any case, crime rates and number of guns out there seem to have little correlation. I did, and I showed you cites that said your cite is very weak. That going door to door and asking “do you got a gun?” doesnt work very well. My cite said "\* According to the 2017 Pew study, 30% of Americans own guns themselves (12 points lower than the 42% who live in households with guns). For Gallup, it was 29% (13 points lower than the 42% who live in households with guns). _"_\* what’s 30% of 300Million? \*\* They do it every year in every state. people are declared, with due process- mentally incompetent. No, we have a process where someone wants someone else to take cares of their finances. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2019, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-declaring-national-emergencies-becomes-a-thing-what-kinds-of-nes-could-the-democrats-do/829664/88 "2019-02-18T05:52:00Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Point being here that if it was bogus… well there should not had been any need to delay that technology as it would indeed had been found to be a failure, however independent tests showed that it was feasible. … > > As I have seen the reports, nothing is perfect indeed, and more recent reviews show me that while it is not 100% effective, a recent paper from the Seton Hall Law Journal checked the pro and con research and concluded that: > > [https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1682&context=shlr](https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1682&context=shlr) (PDF) > > Now I wonder why you ignore what took place years before, gun manufacturers that decided to support a new law got to be boycotted almost to death. Sure they like their money; but that assholery from some gun owners, that was influenced by the propaganda coming from very unsavory sources, does not lead to progress. Yes, that was S&W. But there are hundreds of tiny gun companies, companies that would happlity just sell to CA and etc. But none have. In fact there are gun companies right here in CA, why wouldn’t one of them step forward? They have not because it’s simply not feasible. And why? _Opponents of microstamping advance arguments against it on three main grounds. First, in terms of reliability, opponents cite the above body of tests, as well as portions of some of the tests cited in support of microstamping, to indicate that the technology is imperfect and inaccurate.167Second, on the cost front, opponents argue that microstamping is an expensive measure that will “cost manufacturers millions to implement . . . and raise the price of firearms by at least $200 per gun.”168 Third, as to the practicality of microstamping, critics advance a number of arguments. For one, they contend that criminals could replace the firing pin or file off the code, easily circumventing the technology.169 They also state that the technology is impractical because criminals will steal microstamped cartridge casings and plant them at crime scenes to mislead investigators.170 Finally, they argue that most criminals acquire guns illegally through unregulated channels outside of the effective range of the microstamping requirement.171…Finally, on the practicality metric, microstamping falls short at first blush; the technology is easily removed or obliterated.258 Yet, there is evidence indicating that it still may have some value as criminal alteration of guns used in crimes may not be common.259_ That last is damning. Every law enforcement agency knows that very few guns are bought legally by criminals from gun stores. That number in tiny. And the criminal can bypass it. The roster of people that support microstamping exactly equals those who are in favor of gun control. They want it just to annoy gun owner. They know full well it is useless, but it will annoy gun owners and someday, if enuf states force it, it will just raise the cost of guns- which also makes them happy. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2019, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-declaring-national-emergencies-becomes-a-thing-what-kinds-of-nes-could-the-democrats-do/829664/89 "2019-02-18T06:11:06Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Yes, that was S&W. But there are hundreds of tiny gun companies, companies that would happlity just sell to CA and etc. But none have. In fact there are gun companies right here in CA, why wouldn’t one of them step forward? They have not because it’s simply not feasible. > > And why? > _Opponents of microstamping advance arguments against it on three > main grounds. First, in terms of reliability, opponents cite the above body > of tests, as well as portions of some of the tests cited in support of > microstamping, to indicate that the technology is imperfect and inaccurate.167Second, on the cost front, opponents argue that microstamping is an > expensive measure that will “cost manufacturers millions to implement . . . > and raise the price of firearms by at least $200 per gun.”168 > Third, as to the practicality of microstamping, critics advance a number > of arguments. For one, they contend that criminals could replace the firing > pin or file off the code, easily circumventing the technology.169 They also > state that the technology is impractical because criminals will steal > microstamped cartridge casings and plant them at crime scenes to mislead > investigators.170 Finally, they argue that most criminals acquire guns > illegally through unregulated channels outside of the effective range of the > microstamping requirement.171…Finally, on the practicality metric, microstamping falls short at first > blush; the technology is easily removed or obliterated.258 Yet, there is > evidence indicating that it still may have some value as criminal alteration > of guns used in crimes may not be common.259_ > > That last is damning. Every law enforcement agency knows that very few guns are bought legally by criminals from gun stores. That number in tiny. And the criminal can bypass it. And clearly you bypassed why the paper concludes that it is feasible. > [@DrDeth](#): > > The roster of people that support microstamping exactly equals those who are in favor of gun control. They want it just to annoy gun owner. They know full well it is useless, but it will annoy gun owners and someday, if enuf states force it, it will just raise the cost of guns- which also makes them happy. And repeating your conclusion, that was based on a lot of propaganda from some gun proponents, does not change what was found. As the report said, it is **feasible** technology that requires more research. Requesting a complete abandonment of the idea is what is ridiculous, more so when the judges saw the evidence and was not enough to carry the day for the opponents, and even more ridiculous when one realizes that a lot of the non “feasibility” mantra is coming from some gun owners or groups that mislead many other gun owners. Really, what they did to S&W was really big, and it is silly to minimize the effect that had with gun manufacturers when they appear to support new laws or technology. ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2019, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-declaring-national-emergencies-becomes-a-thing-what-kinds-of-nes-could-the-democrats-do/829664/90 "2019-02-18T07:56:52Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > No, that’s only if no guns are _sold_ in the USA. Most guns bought in the USA are made here. In any case, crime rates and number of guns out there seem to have little correlation. Every year, the U.S. imports millions of guns: in 2015, it was 3,930,211, increasing to 5,137,771 in 2016 before falling back to 4,492,256 in 2017. ([Source](https://www.atf.gov/file/130436/download)). That’s 4 to 5 million guns a year, or 15-20 million over the course of a four-year presidential term, that would not be in the U.S., which is what I said. For example, in 2016 about 5.58 million pistols and revolvers were manufactured domestically, but another 3.6 million handguns were imported. If those 3.6 million were NOT imported, the number of new guns introduced into the American marketplace would be rather lower than is the case under current law. What exactly are you disagreeing with? Gun crime can’t occur in large numbers without widespread availability of guns. Neither can [suicide by guns](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/). > [@DrDeth](#): > > I did, and I showed you cites that said your cite is very weak. That going door to door and asking “do you got a gun?” doesnt work very well. My cite said "\* According to the 2017 Pew study, 30% of Americans own guns themselves (12 points lower than the 42% who live in households with guns). For Gallup, it was 29% (13 points lower than the 42% who live in households with guns). _"_\* what’s 30% of 300Million? \*\* Both of those polls asked American ADULTS. See, for example, that [Pew Study](http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/): "Three-in-ten _ **American adults** _ say they currently own a gun, and another 11% say they don’t personally own a gun but live with someone who does. " [emphasis added] There are not 300 million adults in the U.S.; there are a little over [250 million](https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045217). Thirty percent of 250 million is about 75 million. You seem to be adding another 25 million or so gun-owners just for the hell of it, without any foundation whatsoever. > [@DrDeth](#): > > They do it every year in every state. people are declared, with due process- mentally incompetent. In my state, as in many (most?) states, there is no government agency charged with this. People get declared legally incompetent only when somebody, most commonly a family member, petitions the court for a judgment of incompetency. If nobody among the family/friends/caretakers cares enough or has enough money to make it happen, it doesn’t happen. When there is a government agency (SSA) that has developed sufficient medical and lay evidence that a given individual has exhibited disorientation, irrational thought, inability to communicate, and/or other symptoms sufficient to warrant a finding of inability to manage their own affairs, and has given that person opportunity to contest the decision through an appeals process. Disorientation, irrational thought, etc., are not exactly great predictors of safe gun handling. If the agency has such information, what should they do with it? Sit on it and pretend it doesn’t exist, or do something, and if so, what? > [@DrDeth](#): > > No, we have a process where someone wants someone else to take cares of their finances. No. While one can ask to have a representative payee (as one can ask to be declared under conservatorship), most of those who end up with representative payees got one assigned after Social Security initiated a process of determining capability, rather than the beneficiary initiating the process. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2019, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-declaring-national-emergencies-becomes-a-thing-what-kinds-of-nes-could-the-democrats-do/829664/91 "2019-02-18T14:08:47Z")
Good God, is this devolving into another gun thread? Fuck guns; the concern is that a president can declare an emergency that isn’t really an emergency at all and which he even admits isn’t an emergency, and redirect funds toward actions that won’t actually correct the problem that is supposedly creating the emergency, but _will_ make his political base hoot like trained seals. Anyone who’s okay with Trump doing this now has no excuse to become whiny crybabies when a Democrat does something similar in future. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2019, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-declaring-national-emergencies-becomes-a-thing-what-kinds-of-nes-could-the-democrats-do/829664/92 "2019-02-18T19:40:41Z")
> [@slash2k](#): > > Every year, the U.S. imports millions of guns: in 2015, it was 3,930,211, increasing to 5,137,771 in 2016 before falling back to 4,492,256 in 2017. ([Source](https://www.atf.gov/file/130436/download)). That’s 4 to 5 million guns a year, or 15-20 million over the course of a four-year presidential term, that would not be in the U.S., which is what I said. > > For example, in 2016 about 5.58 million pistols and revolvers were manufactured domestically, but another 3.6 million handguns were imported. If those 3.6 million were NOT imported, the number of new guns introduced into the American marketplace would be rather lower than is the case under current law. What exactly are you disagreeing with? > > Gun crime can’t occur in large numbers without widespread availability of guns. Neither can [suicide by guns](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/). > > B… > In my state, as in many (most?) states, there is no government agency charged with this. … > … > … Most of those handguns imported are sold to the US Military. Foreign gun makers won most of the contracts for handguns. So, we still import those. Or if we didnt the Military would have problems. The domestic production would handle civilian purchase nicely. Yes, and there is widespread availability- \*the 300 Million guns already here. \* Suicide is a basic human right. Better they use a gun than drive into oncoming traffic. That’s fine, so get such a agency. Not my problem, \*your \*problem. The ACLU asks only that Due Process be used. \*\*Anything that doesn’t use Due Process is bogus. Period. \*\* Any argument you use, any solution that doesnt use Due Process is not worth considering. The ACLU agrees with this. Argue with the ACLU. In fact when you find yourself on the opposite side of a argument with the ACLU, that means you are arguing against basic rights for US Citizens. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2019, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-declaring-national-emergencies-becomes-a-thing-what-kinds-of-nes-could-the-democrats-do/829664/93 "2019-02-18T19:41:44Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Good God, is this devolving into another gun thread? > > Fuck guns; the concern is that a president can declare an emergency that isn’t really an emergency at all and which he even admits isn’t an emergency, and redirect funds toward actions that won’t actually correct the problem that is supposedly creating the emergency, but _will_ make his political base hoot like trained seals. Anyone who’s okay with Trump doing this now has no excuse to become whiny crybabies when a Democrat does something similar in future. Good point- let’s take the gun argument to another thread, god knows there’s enough gun threads. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2019, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-declaring-national-emergencies-becomes-a-thing-what-kinds-of-nes-could-the-democrats-do/829664/94 "2019-02-18T20:06:26Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Good God, is this devolving into another gun thread? > > Fuck guns; the concern is that a president can declare an emergency that isn’t really an emergency at all and which he even admits isn’t an emergency, and redirect funds toward actions that won’t actually correct the problem that is supposedly creating the emergency, but _will_ make his political base hoot like trained seals. Anyone who’s okay with Trump doing this now has no excuse to become whiny crybabies when a Democrat does something similar in future. I agree too, I was only following that line to show how, on many subjects, there is a lot of propaganda that is misleading many and that helps then guys like Trump to avoid pressure from the senate that should had taken place since yesterday. So to get back to subject, and as the ACLU has been mentioned as good referees: > **[There Is No ‘National Emergency’ at the Border, and Trump’s Declaration Is...](https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/there-no-national-emergency-border-and-trumps-declaration)** > [@](#): > > There Is No ‘National Emergency’ at the Border, and Trump’s Declaration Is Illegal > By Cecillia Wang, Deputy Legal Director, ACLU > > … > > Let’s get something straight upfront: There is no emergency. Members of Congress from both parties, security experts, and Americans who live at the border have all said so. What the president is doing is yet another illegal and dangerous power grab in service of his anti-immigrant agenda. > > Trump’s declaration damages the rule of law and violates the constitutional checks and balances that protect us, the people, from a president’s abuse of power. The Constitution provides that Congress has the power to spend federal funds — our taxpayer dollars. And Congress has enacted a law that gives the president limited power to spend federal funds without a congressional appropriation when he declares a national emergency. That law lets the president spend taxpayer money on military construction when “necessary to support” the emergency use of armed forces. > > What Trump is doing is patently illegal, because there is no emergency. He even admitted it himself during his press conference today: “I didn’t need to do this, but I’d rather do it much faster.” > > And that’s the truth. This is in contrast on what happened when Obama declared an emergency about the Swine Flu in 2009. Congress actually did agree by coming up with more funding later. I can foresee a future democratic president finding more evidence to support any emergency he or she will encounter. That the right wing sources will twist it to be payback for what Trump is doing will be convincing to some conservatives that will still rely on inadequate sources of information. ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2019, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-declaring-national-emergencies-becomes-a-thing-what-kinds-of-nes-could-the-democrats-do/829664/95 "2019-02-18T21:29:28Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Most of those handguns imported are sold to the US Military. Foreign gun makers won most of the contracts for handguns. So, we still import those. Or if we didnt the Military would have problems. Nope, sorry. While the military used to buy a lot of Italian-made Berettas, those are being phased out, and the Army’s new Sig Sauer is being manufactured in New Hampshire. The big importers are brands such as Glock (which outfits some military units, but sells primarily to civilians) and Taurus and HS Produkt (both of which are almost exclusively sold to civilians). > [@DrDeth](#): > > That’s fine, so get such a agency. Not my problem, \*your \*problem. No, it is EVERYBODY’S problem. Bullets don’t discriminate based on your political beliefs, and it is not somehow “better” if somebody who should not have a gun shoots up a school in one town rather than another. I start from the premise that keeping guns away from people who cannot and will not use them appropriately is a good thing. We can argue about the best methods for doing that, or how to identify who isn’t safe around guns, but if you are disputing the basic premise, then what is there to discuss? I don’t want to see another Parkland, or Sandy Hook or Virginia Tech or UT Austin Tower or any other situation where we look back later and say, “wow, there were all of these warning signs and we missed them, and now we have to bury our loved ones.” I don’t think you do either, so what is the best way to deal with people who are known to the government to be disoriented, unable to communicate, or unable to make rational decisions? Is saying “it’s not my problem” really your answer? > [@DrDeth](#): > > Any argument you use, any solution that doesnt use Due Process is not worth considering. The ACLU agrees with this. Argue with the ACLU. In fact when you find yourself on the opposite side of a argument with the ACLU, that means you are arguing against basic rights for US Citizens. While I generally agree with and support the ACLU, I don’t blindly follow them, nor do I agree that opposing them is automatically anti-freedom. The ACLU’s main complaint, the one they made the focus of their fundraising and lobbying, was that “We oppose this rule because it advances and reinforces the harmful stereotype that people with mental disabilities, a vast and diverse group of citizens, are violent and should not own a gun.” The ACLU has not disputed the process of appointing representative payees to administer benefits, so the upshot is they think having a gun deserves more protection than having access to your own money. No, I don’t think a gun deserves that kind of adulation. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2019, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-declaring-national-emergencies-becomes-a-thing-what-kinds-of-nes-could-the-democrats-do/829664/96 "2019-02-18T21:34:07Z")
> [@slash2k](#): > > Nope, sorry. … We agreed to take the gun debate elsewhere. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [February 18, 2019, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-declaring-national-emergencies-becomes-a-thing-what-kinds-of-nes-could-the-democrats-do/829664/97 "2019-02-18T22:18:39Z")
> [@slash2k](#): > > Nope, sorry. While the military used to buy a lot of Italian-made Berettas, those are being phased out, and the Army’s new Sig Sauer is being manufactured in New Hampshire… I had an uneasy feeling about the US military buying guns from other countries. Which Sig Sauer is the military buying? ---
**Author:** ![Akaj](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/akaj/32/145_2.png) [@Akaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Akaj)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2019, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-declaring-national-emergencies-becomes-a-thing-what-kinds-of-nes-could-the-democrats-do/829664/98 "2019-02-19T16:34:14Z")
I posed this in another thread as an example of what the next Dem president might do, and no one made a convincing case against it: What’s to stop the next Democratic president from declaring that lack of access to safe abortion is a national emergency, and diverting military funds and personnel to building clinics in Kentucky? ---
**Author:** ![Akaj](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/akaj/32/145_2.png) [@Akaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Akaj)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2019, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-declaring-national-emergencies-becomes-a-thing-what-kinds-of-nes-could-the-democrats-do/829664/99 "2019-02-19T18:36:14Z")
Or, on a less facetious note, what if the inability to confiscate firearms from people whom _everyone on both sides agrees should not have them_ is a national emergency? > **[Aurora's mass shooting, Trump's border wall fiction and the real national...](https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/rex-huppke/ct-met-aurora-shooting-trump-wall-national-emergency-huppke-20190218-story.html)** > > Aurora's mass shooting, Trump's border wall fiction and the real national emergency How about we make sure law enforcement agencies here and across the country have the funding to follow up on situations like [Aurora, Illinois] and make sure known felons who possess firearms have those firearms taken away? If it’s so easy for someone like Martin [the shooter, who was erroneously issued a FOID] to ignore a notice and hang on to his handgun for years before deciding to go on a killing spree, maybe that’s something of a national emergency. If we can declare a bogus national emergency and deploy US troops at the border, can we declare a less bogus emergency and deploy them to enforce gun restrictions which other wise go unenforced? ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2019, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-declaring-national-emergencies-becomes-a-thing-what-kinds-of-nes-could-the-democrats-do/829664/100 "2019-02-19T18:59:57Z")
> [@Akaj](#): > > Or, on a less facetious note, what if the inability to confiscate firearms from people whom _everyone on both sides agrees should not have them_ is a national emergency? > > [https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/huppke/ct-met-aurora-shooting-trump-wall-national-emergency-huppke-20190218-story.html](https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/huppke/ct-met-aurora-shooting-trump-wall-national-emergency-huppke-20190218-story.html) > > How about we make sure law enforcement agencies here and across the country have the funding to follow up on situations like [Aurora, Illinois] and make sure known felons who possess firearms have those firearms taken away? If it’s so easy for someone like Martin [the shooter, who was erroneously issued a FOID] to ignore a notice and hang on to his handgun for years before deciding to go on a killing spree, maybe that’s something of a national emergency. > > If we can declare a bogus national emergency and deploy US troops at the border, can we declare a less bogus emergency and deploy them to enforce gun restrictions which other wise go unenforced? In a bit of an awkward moment a couple of days ago, the Dems rejected the idea of notifying ICE when illegal immigrants fail a background check to buy a gun: [Democrats reject push to alert ICE when illegal immigrants fail firearm background checks](https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrats-reject-push-to-alert-ice-when-illegal-immigrants-fail-firearm-background-checks) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-declaring-national-emergencies-becomes-a-thing-what-kinds-of-nes-could-the-democrats-do/829664.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/if-declaring-national-emergencies-becomes-a-thing-what-kinds-of-nes-could-the-democrats-do/829664.md?page=6)