For most people–not the average Bearing Arms reader, but most Americans–people who host TV news shows are thought to have at least some brains. Sure, you sometimes get the pretty face who has no cerebral cortex in evidence, but for the most part? They figure there should be some smarts.
And when you have your own show on the Fox Business Channel, you’re probably someone who is at least a little savvy to how things work, right?
Well, maybe not. The channel’s Trish Regan spent a good bit of time yesterday offering her opinions on guns and gun control, which is her right. However, she also thinks President Trump should create gun control by declaration.
.@realDonaldTrump has a major opportunity: he can BAN assault weapons and envoke strict gun laws and backgrnd checks in one executive order. To heck w/ lobbyists at NRA – the majority of Americans and common sense supports this! It’s time to do what is right for our country.
— Trish Regan (@trish_regan) August 7, 2019
Now, it’s important to understand what executive orders are actually for. You see, they serve a valid purpose in our government.
Executive orders are supposed to be nothing more than the president telling the executive branch agencies how to do their jobs. For example, telling the CIA not to assassinate anyone. Another example would be telling the DEA to ignore pot dispensaries in states that have legalized marijuana. Things like that.
While executive orders may look like law in a lot of ways–and they really do–they can’t create laws out of nothing. That’s a job of Congress.
Regan’s call for executive orders to ban assault weapons and create universal background checks betrays the host’s lack of understanding of how our government works.
If a president were to create a law with just a stroke of their pen, and it be allowed to stand, it would set a terrifying precedent that no right-thinking individual should be comfortable with. Regan’s call is for essentially ignoring the Second Amendment, but what if Trump–a man who has been repeatedly accused of trying to destroy the free press–were to decide that all journalists must be licensed and licenses were “may issue,” meaning the government had to actively approve of a journalist?
That’s the kind of precedent Regan is calling for Trump to set.
Of course, Regan’s call sounds oddly similar to what a certain presidential candidate has called for. I guess we can guess who she’s backing.
Let’s also remember that Barack Obama was president after Sandy Hook. Obama could step on gun owners all he wanted. Few would have voted for him in the first place, and those that did would still excuse him almost any gun control he pushed down the throats of the American people.
Yet after a group of young children were gunned down, he didn’t create the universal background checks or the ban of AR-15s he’d openly advocated. Those are the same things Regan is trying to agitate for with this tweet, yet Obama did no such thing. Why?
Maybe it’s because Barack Obama, a president who loved him some executive orders, knew that doing so was a bridge too far, even for him. He could write the order, but it wouldn’t last much longer than it took to leave the Oval Office.
That’s because, once again, the president doesn’t get to create laws.
However, another point to consider is that if Regan can get such a fundamental part of the process of creating laws so egregiously wrong, just why in the hell should we listen to anything she has to say on anything? This is elementary school-level civics here and she botched it. Why should we assume she’s right about anything else, regardless of the subject?