Dems’ threat to have future prez declare ‘national emergency’ over gun violence is EMPTY

By Jon Dougherty

One reason why so many Republican lawmakers are opposed to President Donald Trump’s declaration of a national emergency along the southwest border in order secure funds to build a border wall is that they fear a Democrat president down the road will use the authority to declare gun violence an “emergency.”

But a new analysis of political, legal, and constitutional aspects of such a declaration reveals that any such threat is empty.

For one thing, notes Graham Noble at, the right to keep and bear arms regardless of any ’emergency’ is guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Any attempt by a Democratic president to ban, confiscate, or otherwise “infringe” upon that right is simply unconstitutional.

Now, he admits, Democratic presidents of late are prone to constitutional violations; Barack Obama simply imposed the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program on the country as an immigration policy in direct violation of existing immigration laws and got away with it. But in that case, an action which was clearly an impeachable offense was allowed to stand thanks to a politicized, partisan Congress.

As Noble writes:

As the president himself pointed out during his CPAC address, he is not setting any precedent because a future Democratic president would invoke national emergency powers if they saw fit to do so, regardless of what Trump does in the present. How quickly people forget that the most stunning example – in recent years – of a president completely bypassing Congress to take action on a major issue of national concern was Barack Obama’s creation of the DACA program. In that instance, the president simply ignored Congress, commandeered its authority to legislate, and changed federal law. Obama did not even declare a national emergency to do so and Congress put up no fight.

“The idea, then, that Trump’s national emergency declaration will embolden future presidents to use the same tactic is nonsense. Congressional Democrats have shown that they are willing to simply cede unlimited authority to a president, should they choose to do so,” he added.

Noble notes further that Democrats have only floated the idea of a gun violence national emergency; they haven’t discussed publicly what one would look like, what form it would take, and — importantly — what ‘measures’ a Democratic president would take to ‘address’ it.

“The truth is, the threat is empty,” he writes. “There is no possible legal basis for a president to unilaterally alter federal firearms laws. National emergency statutes do not grant any authority to impose new laws or to alter existing ones.”

A declaration would even limit a president’s authority, Noble writes, adding that previous legislation explicitly forbids certain actions regarding guns during an emergency:

In 2006, the 109th Congress passed the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act which prohibits the confiscation – either permanently or temporarily – of privately-owned firearms during times of national emergency. It also prohibits the establishment of a gun registry and the imposition of restrictions on the carrying of firearms. This law does not, of course, override any existing federal, state or local firearms regulations already on the books, but it explicitly prevents a national emergency declaration being used to justify the creation of new restrictions.

The blame for the border crisis rests squarely with the same people most opposed to POTUS Trump’s declaration: Lawmakers. Democrats and Republicans have repeatedly failed to assist the Executive Branch in securing the border, creating the humanitarian disaster we now have.

Live Fire Original

But more importantly, Noble points out, nothing in the president’s declaration alters any laws or inhibits any constitutional rights: It merely spends funds that Congress has already appropriated, and not for any specific purpose.

Noble also writes that what actually constitutes a national emergency can be subjective. Illegal immigration has been a problem for decades so why is it an emergency now? Because of the tremendous influx of migrants along our southwestern border — to the extent that our existing resources to deal with the problem are being overwhelmed (and don’t look now but we’re having an increase in illegal crossings from Canada as well).

And what about alcohol consumption? Isn’t that an emergency, given that 88,000 people die each year from alcohol-related causes, according to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism?

“Clearly, a future Democratic president would have no credible basis for declaring gun violence a national emergency and no legal authority to use such a declaration to enact any additional gun restrictions,” writes Noble. “The threat is empty. Any future president who wants to deprive Americans of their Second Amendment rights will attempt to do so without invoking national emergency powers.”

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel by clicking here and liberty-minded Brighteon by clicking here


4 Comments on "Dems’ threat to have future prez declare ‘national emergency’ over gun violence is EMPTY"

  1. Angel of Light | March 11, 2019 at 7:10 pm | Reply

    “Clearly, a future Democratic president would have no credible basis for declaring gun violence a national emergency and no legal authority to use such a declaration to enact any additional gun restrictions,” writes Noble. “The threat is empty”

    This is true but history reminds us that the Democratic Party didn’t hesitate to break constitutional laws when they wanted to. It was a Democratic President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who consciously broke constitutional laws during WWII.

    “Roosevelt authorized the deportation and incarceration with Executive Order 9066, issued on February 19, 1942” He imprisoned about 5,000 Japanese Americans for the attack on Pearl Harbor when they had nothing to do with it.

    If that wasn’t bad enough, government agencies participated in this internment.

    “The United States Census Bureau assisted the internment efforts by spying and providing confidential neighborhood information on Japanese Americans.”

    And again, “the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the removal by ruling against Fred Korematsu’s appeal.” Korematsu was the one who sued the US Government claiming the Executive Order 9066 was unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

    In a 6–3 decision, the Court sided with the government.

    When the Japanese Americans were eventually released, they started life from scratch. They lost their homes, bank accounts; businesses, any assets … everything. This horror happened to American citizens and they were never compensated for their losses!

    This exact same thing could very well happen to us especially in a Democrat/Socialist/Muslim hybrid government.

    So, you see, the Constitution is guaranteed to work only when the people and the government willingly follow it. Otherwise, it becomes a useless piece of paper.

    • John Hundley | March 11, 2019 at 8:44 pm | Reply

      Firearms are not useless pieces of paper and neither is The Constitution.

      We need not hope that the government “willingly follow” The Constitution.

      The Framers gave us the 2A so responsible citizens may protect The Constitution. We The People simply need to do our duty and use our 2A to protect The Constitution as The Framers intended.

  2. John Swanson | March 11, 2019 at 8:31 pm | Reply

    Angel of light please get your facts right, the Japanese were compensated, do some research.


Have something to say?

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: