Of course, a “gun crisis” emergency executive order could be issued. My sense is that this would be a bridge too far and would result in a prohibition-like atmosphere with chaos, crime and civil disobedience approaching civil war.

It's not technically bypassing congress since what he is doing is activating the National Emergencies Act of 1976 which was passed by congress to give the president the power to act.

Does this fall within the scope of that act? I guess we'll find out in the ensuing court battles.

And what he's doing is moving money around, not removing a constitutional right -- which would probably instantly fail in the courts. Although FDR did get away with imprisoning a race of citizens, but then the Court let FDR do pretty much anything he wanted, it was a New Deal after all, not that old constitution.

I think that presidents have been conspiring with con-gress for decades against the liberty of Americans. Of course, I am concerned if ANY president has emergency powers that are unconstitutional, but presidents have been doing the bidding of the state with such powers for decades pretending its for our own good.
When someone can convince enough people to wake up and stop giving their consent and their money to the feds, then there will be a chance for the unconstitutional overreach to stop.
Until that happens Americans will follow the new savior of the moment. Trump may be the least harmful and the best chance for a return to constitutional government, but only if he resists the temptation of great power and can gather enough allies and support to defeat a very powerful deep state enemy that has been manipulating people for centuries. The risk that any leader will be willing to give up the power once vested is a great danger to liberty.
If Americans give up their firearms there is nothing to prevent dictatorship.
I have no peaceful solution to this quandary, Zero.

There are roughly 100 million known gun owners (and most likely a lot of unknowns as well), approximately 300 million guns in private hands, and around 12 trillion rounds of ammunition privately held. State efforts to get gun owners to voluntarily turn in large capacity magazines have flopped. Even in "blue" New York, less than an estimated 5% complied, and law enforcement has made it known they oppose any effort to forcibly seize legally owned guns.

Any president who tried to declare gun ownership a national emergency would be triggering a revolt. It's not unimaginable that a Democrat with visions of the grandeur of a police state might make the attempt, but it would fail catastrophically.

The least harmful ending to such a declaration would be the SCOTUS ruling it unconstitutional, violating the 2nd amendment. Beyond that is an invitation to violence, with most uniformed military siding with the citizen gun owners.

The leftists will do whatever they can get away with. Trump should do what he can while he can

First of all (last question first): Nancy Pelosi is an empty suit. Second, the crucial difference between President Trump's National Emergency (vs. some hypothetical NE that confiscates personal firearms) is that the POTUS has the constitutional duty to defend the constitution and the country (that would mean, borders). We have Second Amendment Rights in this country, and any EO to take them would be blatantly unconstitutional, violating not only the 2nd, but also the 4t, 5th, and 14th Amendments. The only "gun crisis" we have had in this country is when democrats are in power and they threaten our Second Amendment rights. Starting with the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA '68), which was an emotional "We've got to DO something!" overreaction to the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and MLK, Carter subsequently issued an edict that anybody purchasing "handgun ammo" had to register their names, addresses, and other personal identifying information (PII) in a notebook in the sporting goods store where you bought the ammo. At the time, I was in high school, but I had a .22 Remington bolt-action RIFLE, so I had to sign my name every time I bought .22 ammo (because it COULD be used in a handgun!). I didn't have to sign my name for .30-30 Win or .30-06 Springfield, which of course are much more powerful. Later, Reagan rescinded that stupid Carter edict (I don't remember whether that was an "Executive Order" or what). (So, just because some gun control rule gets on the books, doesn't mean it will always be there.) Still later, there was Clinton's assault on gun rights ("Assault Weapon Ban" etc.). During Obama's junta, threats to Second Amendment rights went into orbit, and gun sales skyrocketed. Again, the only "gun crisis" is when our rights are threatened by left-wing tyrants. If some future president were to declare a NE over guns, what would that mean? An order to confiscate personal firearms en masse? That would trigger civil war. There would be "Lexington Green" events all over the country. Half the households in this country have guns. Out of a population of 330 million, 100-120 million people have guns, and there are 300 million firearms in private hands. So, the "average" gun owner has 3 firearms (some have less, some have more - some have a LOT more!). We will NEVER surrender our constitution rights. Molon labe!

...then comes the bloody civil war...and I think the military will side with gun owners...

I think that the up and coming socialist kids like AOC would not hesitate to use whatever means to achieve their ends. Pelosi, not so sure about. Also, I wish to whine, and forgive me if this was already stated here, as I haven't had time to read the whole thread: There have been a LOT of national emergencies declared over the decades. I think the exec branch has too much power already, but I guess what I'm whining about it the thought that he's getting so much flack for just this one.

Here are the problems with that argument:
1) Where was this when Obama gave Amnesty/work papers to illegals?
2) He is doing it, WITHIN the guidelines of the laws. We have a RIGHT to have our borders secured.
3) If you point this at confiscating guns... BUT LIMIT it to ILLEGALS... I am okay with that!
4) If you think declaring an national emergency of Freedom of Speech or the Second Amendment is NOT a clear violation of our rights (vs. securing the border, which is part of the presidents job)... Then I think you are making the liberal argument.

Finally, we may well be past the point of no return. If Trump cant get this fixed up, it wont matter, they will come for our Freedom of Speech (closing conservative platforms... Oh, already started), and limiting gun purchases to those 21 and older (oh, done that), and then they will make magazines holding more than ONE bullet illegal (it's probably coming), and then, and then...

We are sliding down the slippery slope at a rapid pace.

I think the danger sign is when they say 'we are doing this for your own good.' Those words give me a chill.

Obviously there are too many defensive weapons out there. It’s called freedom.

That's the thing that bothers me about Trump's "emergency announcement" plan: What happens when the shoe's on the other foot?! What if another Roosevelt gets in and wants to take over all the nation's banks, or something? Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander; we should not allow one government official to have that much power.

The next national emergency is measles, polio-like illness, chicken pox, tetanus, etc...

Everybody's dying.

There is no gun crisis outside of those area where Ds have enacted unconsitutional gun laws. The fact that its isolated to specific cities within specific states negates the crisis moniker by removing the term national emergency from the discussion.

Pelosi is a witness hag using scare tactics to try to influence what she has no business influencing. In fact I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out she and her cronies helped manufacture incidents over the years to advance their "gun violence" anti-gun agenda.

I think nearly all Executive Orders sit on very shaky Constitutional grounds. So, yes, I am concerned and I think it a very valid and poignant question.

The real question comes in the enforcement, however, because without that, Orders are effectively meaningless. What is the standard enforcement measure of the Executive Branch? The military. Good luck getting those guys to go around with weapons drawn confiscating others' weapons. I know too many good men and women in the armed forces and there is no way they would go along with such an order.

The ability to use executive orders to make new rules that the population must obey has been used since the first presidency. It is contrary to the idea of a constitutional republic and arguing about it is irrelevant since any rule is enforced on the populace regardless of its validity. If Donald Trump believed in the constitution (his actions have proven that he does not) he would not use it for any reason.

I can't put into enough words why this whole idea is so asinine. So, the Democrats would NEVER have thought of doing something like this if President Trump had NOT used his emergency powers for the wall...?

Give me a break!

TERM LIMITS !!! Term Limits would tend to make people have more common sense, and less chance to change their minds based on politics. They would spend more effort representing than they do campaigning. It would benefit everyone, especially the nation as a whole.

Nancy should be made aware that Term Limits is really a national emergency.

Yup. Whenever you make a huge change like this, it will usually bite you in the butt later on!

By then ole Nancy will be in the nursing home or gone, the victim of MS 13 members. Most of my pals agree with cousin Charleton, "From my cold dead hands ...."

There would be open insurrection and the dimms know that. The Federal military is forbidden by the Constitution from firing on American civilians, and I dare say that most of the police would quit their stations before taking the part of communists.

Think this would get shut down by one of the handful of real federal judges left.

I don't think the a fake "gun crisis" is a good analogy. Border protection is something we're already spending money on. Congress and the president disagree on how much to spend. A better analogy would be a fake crisis associated with childhood nutrition, healthcare, or housing. It would be something we're already spending money on like food stamps, Medicaid, or rent/mortgage subsidies.

I hope courts disallow it and it turns out just to be a political ploy. If the executive branch making up a fake national emergency actually works, I predict another fake emergency will be coming soon, and it will involve "the children".

Are you psychic? Pelosi was just yelling about gun control!

No matter what the feds do, me dino just can't see anybody coming after my guns in Sweet Home Alabama. And I ain't going anywhere.