President Donald Trump said he’ll "seriously look" at banning gun silencers after last week’s mass shooting in Virginia.
“Well, I’d like to think about it," Trump said in an interview with Piers Morgan on ITV’s Good Morning Britain. “I’m going to seriously look at it."
While Trump said he didn’t "love" the idea of a ban, he also was unhappy to see the frequency and severity of mass shootings in the U.S.
Trump’s comments represent a potential crack in Republican opposition to stronger gun control measures.
They follow a shooting last week at a municipal center in Virginia Beach, Virginia, in which a gunman killed 12 people. Police recovered a high-capacity magazine and a silencer mechanism from the scene.
Virginia’s Democratic governor, Ralph Northam, said Tuesday he will summon lawmakers back to the state Capitol to consider a package of gun-control legislation. Republicans control the state’s legislature. Northam’s proposals include a ban on silencers and high-capacity magazines.
The Trump administration earlier this year banned bump stocks, devices that let a semi-automatic weapon fire like a machine gun.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] 19040703? ago
They are the only form of authority a president has the technically overrides the law. Only a sitting U.S. President may overturn an existing executive order by issuing another executive order to that effect.
They have the force of law and when in effect are carried out as if it was a law
Bumpstocks are now banned because of Trump's executive order, that is a fact.
[–] 19040711? ago
This is aggressively wrong. Congress can and does override executive orders with legislation, which takes precedence over EOs, which are strictly just there to provide guidance to executive agencies on how to enforce the law (though it's been abused for decades, especially by King Nigger). The courts are also superior to EOs, which must pass (((Constitutional muster))) to be valid. States can also act to bar the implementation of EOs, or to modify their effects, within their borders, and though this hasn't really been tested in court it would probably hold up for any issue the Jews aren't too serious about, like Nigger Rights or antisemitism.
Ironically, past presidents have actually been blocked from overturning the EOs of their predecessors. I don't understand how, but both Bush and Obama have been cockblocked for trying to flip or repeal Clinton-era orders. Probably typical Jewish tricks, but EOs are not what you think they are.
[–] 19045735? ago
<what is checks and balances
Congress can cut funding but as you pointed out yourself executive orders aren't fucking laws so they can't be overridden by laws. They're above the law and carried out as such.
This is technically true but only if a court is wants to challenge the order. No court wanted to challenge the bump-stock ban so it went into effect, but they did challenge his EO to ban muslims.
You are the one denying that they have any power at all. Look up the bump-stock ban, talk to a local gunstore owner and tell him all this shit and he will laugh at you. The ban is in effect. I would hope the courts would challenge EO gun control but they haven't so far, so why would they now? Hmmm?