Rep. Eric Swalwell has already said he’s going to center his presidential campaign on gun control and will unleash nuclear weapons on anyone who tries to stand in his way, but that doesn’t mean the other Democratic hopefuls aren’t weighing in as well.
As Twitchy reported, Sen. Kamala Harris told a CNN town hall that if Congress didn’t “get their act together and have the courage to pass reasonable gun safety laws” in the first 100 days of her administration, she’d resort to executive orders to create the gun control laws she wants with her pen and phone.
This might have been the one thing on which she hasn’t flip-flopped, but she really ought to.
Some will say my plan to combat gun violence is “too bold.” As president, if Congress continues to bury its head in the sand, I will act. Too many people have died for us to wait any longer. https://t.co/KJEMAZ72az
— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) April 25, 2019
“Taking executive actions if Republicans continue to cower to the NRA.” Harris must know that the NRA doesn’t give even a fraction to candidates what Planned Parenthood does, and she even posted a fundraising page for Planned Parenthood on her campaign site. Maybe she really doesn’t know the difference between a Constitutional right and a special interest? Or what separation of powers means?
Her website says, “If Congress fails to send comprehensive gun safety legislation to Harris’ desk within her first 100 days as president — including universal background checks, an assault weapons ban, and the repeal of the NRA’s corporate gun manufacturer and dealer immunity bill — she will take executive action to keep our kids and communities safe.”
Too bold? Too bold to make it through the Supreme Court, for sure.
Nobody said it's "too bold." But we did say it's too authoritarian. We've had enough of unilateral executive action, thank you.
— Matthew DesOrmeaux ⚜ (@authoridad) April 25, 2019
Not bold. You’re just hitting the daily double: ineffective and unconstitutional.
— Ross Allen (@rossallen3) April 25, 2019
Announcing your intent to scrap the Constitutional rights of still free Americans is pretty “bold.”
— Berkeley Buff (@WVRedElephant) April 25, 2019
Only if by “too bold”, you mean unconstitutional. On many levels. Putting aside 2A concerns for a moment, this would still be a massive overstep of executive power. This would be an act of legislating, a function reserved almost exclusively for Congress. #separationofpowers
— Matt Sandström (@mdsandstrom) April 25, 2019
Executive orders are legally permissible only in areas of policy unoccupied by Congressional legislation. If Congress refuses to speak on an issue of utmost importance, the Exec can step in and issue an EO. However, Congress has already spoken on gun rights in explicit detail.
— Matt Sandström (@mdsandstrom) April 25, 2019
I guess that’s the polite way of putting it. I prefer “tyranny”, “a threat to the constitution”, or “the reason the second amendment exists”
— Luke Moravec (@deathdragon007) April 25, 2019
Too bold …. more like unconstitutional and unrealistic
— Aaron R (@notwitty30) April 25, 2019
Its not too bold, its stupid. How do you define a weapon of war? Are we talking a AR-15 or are we talking a bolt action rifle? Or are we talking about a broadsword since that was once the preferred weapon of war? You cannot define what it means to be 'armed' with violating rights
— Patton Mazzola (@pattonmazz17) April 25, 2019
No it's not "too bold" it's simply unconstitutional.
— Chris Manning (@Manning4USCong) April 25, 2019
No. Executive. Orders.
— Cindy AZ Girl? (@SashaBelleSun) April 25, 2019
It's not too bold – don't give yourself that kind of credit. Your plan is mistargeted, Senator. Either you know that and won't admit it, or you're not really invested in solving problems so much as pandering to the willfully uneducated. Which is it?
— Scott Valentine (@sjv) April 25, 2019
"Too bold" is a misstatement Jr Senator, it's an abuse of power. You see, there's this body called Congress, you might know it as you're a part of it. Are you going to be like the last failed president who pounded his chest and said I've got a pen & I've got a phone
— Observation Guy (@SpeakMyMindGuy) April 25, 2019
Declaring your intention, on day 101 of your administration, to step outside the Article II constraints of your office, is a strange campaign strategy.
— Charles Dunkley (@cedunkley) April 25, 2019
No! Some say your “bold plan” is unconstitutional.
If I remember right you, you blasted Trump for using executive privilege on immigration issues and now you want to use executive privilege to take away law abiding American’s constitutional rights.
That’s called hypocrisy.
— Matt (@JohnGault28) April 25, 2019
It’s not bold, it’s acting upon information you have no clue about. You include suicidal deaths are part of number of violent deaths by firearms. Plus you and every CA Democrat have no idea about anything firearm related. You just make crap up to say a firearm is a “war” weapon.
— Jason Tisdale (@jasontisdale2) April 25, 2019
Your plan is not bold – it’s based on factual distortions held out as truth. You are attempting to take advantage of uninformed people and their emotional responses to a complex issue.
— B.NeilMcCauley (@BNeilmccauley) April 25, 2019
Is it worth having a conversation about?
— YABBA DABBA DOO!!! ? (@j1mmykrackc0rn) April 25, 2019
As president, Kamala Harris vows to use executive actions on guns…because that worked out so well for Obama https://t.co/bhX1qXo88i
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) April 23, 2019