Feingold (D-WI): Hillary Might Issue Executive Order on Guns

Both the up-ticket and down-ticket races this election are important. For me, an overriding issue is appointments to the SCOTUS and judiciary. Next, and related to it, is to halt the erosion of our civil rights. One of the rights that protects the other rights, along with freedom of speech, religion and assembly, is the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms. This right checks tyranny. The first thing that oppressive regimes do is curtail freedom of speech and assembly and religion. And they confiscate firearms.

I saw this interesting story about a candidate in the state in which I will vote in November.

From Free Beacon (which originally caught my eye because I thought it said “free bacon”:

Feingold: Hillary Might Issue Executive Order on Guns

Russ Feingold, the former Democratic senator from Wisconsin who is running again in an attempt to win back his old Senate seat, was recorded at a fundraiser saying that Hillary Clinton might issue an executive order on guns.

The video was captured by James O’ Keefe’s Project Veritas at an Aug. 17, $2,700 per-head fundraiser held at the Palo-Alto, Calif., home of Democratic donors Amy Rao and Harry Plant. Palo-Alto is located 10 minutes away from Stanford University, where Feingold taught after leaving his position as a special envoy at the U.S. State Department.

Feingold can be heard in the video discussing what Hillary Clinton could do in relation to guns if she were to be elected president.

“If there’s still Republican control in Congress, and if Hillary is elected, is there anything she can do to uhh…,” a person asks Feingold within the video. “Well, there might be an executive order,” Feingold responds.

“Oh, so she can, I know that Bara…” the questioner counters. Feingold then talks of President Obama’s executive orders throughout his two terms.

“He did some executive orders with the aspects of waiting oeriods. But what we all need is the Senate, have her there, and then put pressure on the House. And we might win the House,” Feingold says.


About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Going Ballistic, Pò sì jiù, The Coming Storm, The future and our choices and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Kathleen10 says:

    I agree with you completely. I now feel extraordinarily pessimistic about the ability of Americans to see clearly and think rationally. For whatever reasons, I am hearing too many Americans who are failing to comprehend the dangers we are facing with a Clinton presidency, and not dangers way off in the future, dangers that are really close. People are in complete denial about where we are as a nation and are letting the media and the anti-Trump movement make their voting decision for them. They are voting with the in-crowd, and the in-crowd is voting for her.
    I don’t think it is overstating the case to say everything is on the line with this election, our children’s future and our children’s children. Please God, let us get it right.

  2. KateD says:

    Molon Labe :)

  3. KateD says:

    It would be a usurpation of Constitutional rights, outside the legitimate authority granted to any branch…and an impeachable violation of the oath to defend the Constitution, required for the swearing into office.

    Should a president elect attempt to seize office without being sworn in, the Congress should take it as an act of treason and immediatly action to deny them office and swear in the next in line….keep going down the chain of command till you land on a person willing to take the oath.

    No oath, no contract. No contract, no job. Next.

    Whoever takes the oath, must be held to it, or removed from office.


  4. SenexCalvus says:

    Should the followers of Jesus Christ really be worried about losing their right to bear arms? Am I mistaken in thinking that the canonical irregularity known as ‘defectus lenitatis’ derives from such dominical admonitions as “turn the other cheek” and “all that take the sword shall perish with the sword”? At a time when the very rock upon which the Church is built is turning to sand, should one still concern himself with the fleshly “right” to kill his brother? Did Sts. Lawrence and Perpetua brandish swords in their own defense? Is the only difference between the Kingdom of God and that of Caesar the presumed righteousness of the wielder of the sword? Was Rome won for Christ at the point of a sword or by the witness of men and women who offered the sick and lame as the treasure of the Church and met death in the arena with joy? Has anyone really found freedom in the right to own guns? Whatever happened to the idea of freedom from sin, the only freedom that is truly human? I wish the answer to such questions could be heard above the clamor.

  5. ChgoCatholic says:

    Absolutely, Clinton will gun grab if she’s elected. I’m interested in how many people refuse to believe that this whole “fighting tyranny” thing could ever happen to them. All of human history apparently doesn’t ring a bell…we’re so “enlightened” today that it is unthinkable? Yeah, right–that’s exactly what the powers that be want people to believe.

    And right alongside this, we have Massachusetts now attempting to enact and enforce laws against churches teaching doctrine on their own property to their own members! http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/massachusetts-law-could-forbid-churches-to-preach-on-transgenderism-99326/?platform=hootsuite

    Fr. Z, please keep up your posts and your sound guidance!

  6. Jenson71 says:

    There’s a significant rationalization from intelligent people who should abhor Donald Trump, and (particularly with religious leaders) know that they should abhor Donald Trump, that they can support his presidency due to his ability to use the judiciary as a tool of his executive power, or conversely to prevent Clinton from using the judiciary as a tool of her executive power.

    First, I’d really like to know whether this idea has significant justification. How often is Justice Kennedy or Chief Justice Roberts derided by conservatives for their votes or opinions, despite having been nominated by conservative presidents? It was a fighting issue between Jeb Bush and Trump in Republican primary debates.

    Second, if justified, I think we need to recognize that a judicial branch sitting at the pleasure and whims of the executive is itself a coercion of our civil rights and that reform must be considered. At a structural level, is there anything more important to the health of our republic than an independent judiciary?

  7. iamlucky13 says:

    “which originally caught my eye because I thought it said ‘free bacon'”

    That’s a pretty sneaky way to sell subscriptions.

    Joking aside, even gun control laws properly run through the legislative process have only had limited success lately, mainly with regards to background checks. I hold out at least some hope that the Supreme Court would hold the executive to her proper limits in this manner, even if she nominates a pawn or another Breyer (who let slip in McDonald v Chicago that he holds the deeply erroneous belief that the Bill of Rights is not about individual rights) and Congress accepts the nomination.

  8. Ed the Roman says:

    SenexCalvus, from the CCC:

    Legitimate defense

    2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”65

    2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

    If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66

    2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

    N.B. that the passage referring to the use of arms by government to repel aggressors contains the word “also”: the government is not the only legitimate user of force to defend the innocent.

  9. Sonshine135 says:

    If a nationwide ban is attempted, the US will devolve into a civil war. I think we are a lot closer than people believe we are. If the brain dead votes in Hillary, she appoints SCOTUS judges that start mandating new law through the judiciary, and she mandates restrictions through executive order, thinking people will not tolerate it. These things only have the teeth of what states are willing to enforce.

  10. anilwang says:

    SenexCalvus says: “Should the followers of Jesus Christ really be worried about losing their right to bear arms? “

    That’s not the point. There are three branches of government in the US, the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial and they must be in balance for there to be a democracy and the constitution is supposed to set limits on each branch. Without this balance and constraint, you have dictatorship. Executive orders bypass the Legislative, and this one attempts to weaken or override one amendment of the constitution so it is doubly troubling. Adding to the potential president’s commitment to appoint judges that align with her ideology and not the constitution, you have a potential president that may have a judiciary that rubber-stamp all her presidential abuses and the wikileaks email releases show that this is only the beginning of her desire to thoroughly dominate the US. Granted she isn’t the only president to overreach her authority, but her overreach has a much higher chance of succeeding, and it will be very hard for the Catholic Church in the US.

  11. KateD says:

    Senex Calvis,

    What exactly did He mean by that, do you think? The person He said it to, Peter died.
    Until Jesus returns and we are in our glorified bodies, it seems we all still die at some point. Are you saying that you believe that He meant if we are unarmed we will meet a peaceful death?

    There is an account of a very holy young Franciscan companion of Saint Junipero Sera who was caught out near the newly established Mission in San Diego when a particular vicious faction of an indigenous tribe that had traveled very far came to raid the mission and steal its belongings. They did the most unspeakable things to this friar. After the attack was successfully resisted, they found his naked and mutalated body in an arroyo not far from the mission. He was a gentle and precious soul, a Franciscan and therefore, unarmed. I can think of no soul more piously docile than him. This did not prevent him from dying a violent death.

    It seems, at the very least, a misinterpretation of Jesus’ words to imply if we are unarmed we will not meet a death by “sword”, when, by your own account, even pacifist saints have met such a death.

    Do you mean to say that martyrdom ensures the spread of Christianity?

    Christianity was nearly wiped from the face of the Earth by the sword of Islam. All of Chrisandom which followed that interpretation, North Africa, the Middle East, etc. is only a faint memory of historians. Islam was successfully defeated at The Battle of Lepanto in a victory granted through the intercession of the Queen of Heaven. Yes, they prayed the rosary, and they brandished their swords and fought valiantly…..And every person who lived at that time, so far as we know, is now dead. But because men of courage took arms and defended themselves and their way of life, Christianity survived to be our inheritance and Islam was kept silent (until the current administration, including a certain candidate, let them loose on the world again). Christianity has not flourished over the centuries where Islam cuts down martyrs.

    I’m not looking to kill my brother; I’m seeking to defend my faith, my family, my neighbor and our way of life from those who would violently take those things from us…And yes, I will defend the innocent, to the best of my ability, from those who would rape and torture and murder. Even without the threat of Islam, the maintenance of arms is not only a just action and lawful in my country: It is a civic responsibility. Americans are not subjects. We are citizen participants in government. I, my neighbor, the Clintons, Trumps and Obamas may participate equally in governance.

    There are balances of power built into the framework to protect the country from monarchy and tyranny. The power of ‘We the People’ is maintained through the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. That right cannot be removed and have it still be the USA.

    The Constitution is a contract. Our government operates on the authority given to it by ‘We the People’. It has no authority outside of what it has specifically been granted. The rights listed in that agreement are part of that contract. Redacting the Bill of Rights, voids the contract, which would also void governmental authorities. That’s called anarchy. So yes, if you want a civilized world to live in, where countries spend very little on their militaries because America is standing at the gate, then yes, it is very necessary for citizens of the USA to maintain their right to bear arms.

    Current US candidates and sitting executives are attempting to spread the errors of Russia that Our Lady warned us of at Fatima via a bloodless revolution. That objective cannot be obtained while the ‘We the People’ maintain our arms.

    And another thing….

    Turning the other check means standing firm with persistent clarity and conviction even when you’re being walloped. It is not an encouragement of masochism…

  12. Filipino Catholic says:

    “At a time when the very rock upon which the Church is built is turning to sand…” [No! Impossible. The Church is indefectible.] That the one who currently sits upon the Throne of Stone is at best equivocal in his pronouncements and at worst is liable to speaking outright error (for some at least) is no cause to believe Christ’s promise is fraying at the seams. Good popes come and go, bad popes come and go, Christ as our foundation endures in saecula saeculorum. Time will come when the helmsman of the Barque of Peter is replaced, but our eyes should be on the Captain whose command even the wind and waves obey.

    Though He said “all that take the sword shall perish with the sword” (Mt. 26:52), He also said “he that hath not, let him sell his coat, and buy a sword” (Lk. 22:36). There might as yet be some allegorical meaning hidden in the exhortation to buy a sword, but I’m unaware of it as of yet and find myself in the Ethiopian’s position, looking for a proper Apostle to explain the passage.

  13. SKAY says:

    SenexCalvus it would have been nice if the Christians that have been slaughtered by the ISIS Muslims in the Middle East could have been armed and able to protect themselves and kept their women and children from being brutalized. In the past the first thing leftist dictators do is disarm their citizens.

    Wikileaks released emails(from various Democrat operatives) have shown a bright light on the absolute dishonesty of the Democrat Party and those financing them. It is breathtaking and the MSM is doing it’s best to ignore the outright criminality shown . In the mold of Obama, she will
    absolutely use executive privilege to rule Soros (socialist, atheist) had a great influence on Obama and will on Hillary. Released emails have shown that also.

    Thank you for the post Father Z. We used to talk about priest holes as being in the bad old past.

    Jenson 71 said:
    “At a structural level, is there anything more important to the health of our republic than an independent judiciary?”

    Yes that would be nice. In fact that is how it was supposed to be. Unfortunately once Roe v Wade was decided, appointments have been politicized in order to protect the ability to kill the unborn.
    I saw this play out while watching the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. Biden and Ted Kennedy -two “catholic” Democrats were working to ensure that the appointments were not in the
    Scalia ore Thomas mold.
    Of course FDR(Democrat) tried to increase the number of Justices so that he could pack the court and get all of his ideas through that he knew the court at that time and the Constitution would not allow.

  14. RichR says:

    i just bought 1,000 rounds of 38 special when I saw the polls after the debate. Hillary will win, and she will definitely make access to guns and ammo more restricted. Why wait for the pinch?

    Try gunbot(dot)net for a nice aggregate website for ammo

  15. Kerry says:

    KateD, very well said. I think besides the Christian culture, and Christendom itself, the Dems especially hate the gun culture. One wearies of their lies, “common sense gun laws”, “waiting periods”, “high capacity magazines”, “only designed to kill”, “sporting purposes”. Are you familiar with the book Unintended Consequences by John Ross…? One can read it at the InternetArchive.
    Keep your powder dry and have lots of powder. And, “Viva Christo Rey!”

  16. excalibur says:

    They are also coming for the 1st Amendment. Øbama gave up our control of the internet, now he longs for the days of three networks doling out what news we should hear. He opines that there is a need for a “curating function”.

    Obama decries ‘wild west’ media landscape

    Folks, we are all sinners. So we have the choice, mine is to vote for Trump. Not voting, voting third party, is the same as voting for Hillary, a notorious woman (outed by Yoko Ono). And Hillary will cement the ghouls of abortion with her SCOTUS nominees.

  17. Kathleen10 says:

    KateD, that could not have been said any better.
    I do not believe Jesus intended innocent people to be raped, tortured, or slaughtered by savages. Too many bishops have taught pacifism, not Catholicism, just when we need sensible thinking and rational decision making, we find muddled heads and moral confusion. I can absolutely promise you, that civil war could come to these United States again. I do not hope those days come, I am saying they could, provoked by any number of factors. Tyranny, savagery, unchecked criminals roaming, billionaires stoking fires and facilitating anarchy, completely morally bankrupt political leaders, who are more likely to stoke more fires than be of any help to Americans, we are in seriously troubled times. Worst of all, we have a most befuddled citizenry, poorly catechized and poised to vote for an obsessively pro-abort woman whose words and actions are truly frightening and who clearly has behind her a huge and corrupt machine that owns the media. This ought to send chills down Catholic spines, especially with the recent Wilileaks emails that show her campaign manager intentionally planted operatives to disrupt our Catholic church by pushing a progressive campaign. We will experience significant Catholic suppression and persecution under this godless woman who said not long ago “religious beliefs must be changed”. (!)
    Back to the point, being armed is an American right. I don’t care if others agree or disagree. It is our right and it shall not be taken from us. I am a grandmother, and this is how I see it.

  18. Gilbert Fritz says:

    Some people here say not voting in this election, or voting third party, is the same as voting for Hillary. In that case, do they think not voting is a mortal sin? Voting for Hillary (depending on knowledge and motive, of course) is a sin, quite possibly mortal.

    What say you?

    [I think it is, if you know her platform.]

  19. Suburbanbanshee says:

    SenexCalvus — You do realize that Judith, in the Book of Judith, is a type of the Virgin Mary? And Deborah from Judges, and Jael?

    Judith 13: 6-10 —

    “And Judith stood before the bed praying with tears and the motion of her lips, in silence saying,
    “Strengthen me, O Lord God of Israel, and in this hour look on the works of my hands, that as You have promised, You may raise up Jerusalem, Your city; and that I may bring to pass that which I have purposed, having a belief that it might be done by You.”

    And when she had said this, she went to the pillar that was at his bed’ s head, and loosed [Holofernes’] sword that hung tied upon it. And when she had drawn it out, she took him by the hair of his head, and said, “Strengthen me, O Lord God, at this hour.”

    And she struck twice upon his neck, and cut off his head, and took off his canopy from the pillars, and rolled away his headless body.

  20. LovedSinner says:

    I missed this article written earlier this week by Phil Lawler of Catholic Culture.

    Have pro-lifers become the GOP’s second-class citizens?

    Hadley Arkes, who has been an effective pro-life battler in Washington’s trench warfare for years, is worried that Pro-lifers Settle for Dhimmitude these days. His argument is, I think, unanswerable.

    The only serious discussion of abortion in this year’s presidential race swirls around Donald Trump’s promise to appoint pro-life judges….

    So now some pro-life activists instruct us to work tirelessly for Trump, despite any reservations we might have, because he would appoint good judges to the Supreme Court. (Hillary Clinton, they add, would certainly appoint judges hostile to the pro-life cause. On that point there is no argument.) But if the only hope that pro-lifers have for a Trump presidency is the prospect of good Supreme Court appointments, the realization of that hope requires several things:

    -Trump must win the election.
    -As President, Trump must keep his promise to nominate only solid “originalist” judges.
    -When these judges are nominated, they must be approved by the Senate, where Democrats will be united against them and Republicans (many of whom have already broken with Trump) may be inclined to compromise.

    Right now all three of those possibilities look to me like longshots. But it’s not enough for one or two hopes to come through. For pro-lifers to profit at all from supporting Trump, they’d need to hit the trifecta.

    And as a bonus, if Trump wins, being the incumbent President, he will be the overwhelming favorite to win the GOP nomination in 2020, blocking pro-life chances again.

    Gee…let’s vote for some wild outside chance even if it means putting a sexual predator in the White House who will forever tarnish the image of good and decent pro-life warriors and greatly harm the whole pro-life movement.

  21. SenexCalvus says:

    No, Suburbanbanshee, the poor benighted women who taught my CCD classes never explained to me that Judith was a type of the Blessed Mother. It was a largely Irish parish, and they did teach me not to put any stock in the vestiges of my ancestors’ superstitions, but their treatment of typology, I admit, was simplistic: they did little more than explain to us that types are meant to be interpreted allegorically, rather than literally. I can’t say, though, that they even hinted that the Blessed Mother is an exemplar of the headsman archetype. Our instruction along those lines focused more on the piercing of her Immaculate Heart, which, they explained to us, symbolized the pains she suffered as the mother of a child whom she saw tortured to death. (In those days, it wasn’t too much of a stretch to think of a mother grieving for her child.) I do thank you, however, for pointing out to me that it is possible to think of the Blessed Mother in a more, shall we say, ’empowered’ way. We we’re no doubt indoctrinated with too many pious legends of martyrs singing hymns as they faced horrific deaths. If only they had had the means to fight back! This is, after all, the point of liberation theology, is it not?

  22. Gilbert Fritz says:

    Some people here say not voting in this election, or voting third party, is the same as voting for Hillary. In that case, do they think not voting is a mortal sin? Voting for Hillary (depending on knowledge and motive, of course) is a sin, quite possibly mortal.

    What say you?

    [I think it is, if you know her platform.]

    Father, can I have a clarification? Do you think that voting for Hillary is a mortal sin, or voting third party is a mortal sin? I’d agree on the first, disagree on the second.

Comments are closed.