The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 9, 2009, 10:44 PM   #1
Micahweeks
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2009
Location: North Mississippi
Posts: 849
Assault Weapons Ban

Ok. On February 25, 2009 (just a few months ago), Attorney General Eric Holder stated that the Obama administration would be seeking to reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban. However, I have a few questions regarding this that I am hoping some who has done much more research than I have can answer.

1. The first job of any politician is to get re-elected (thank you Mr. Trim for that one!). Many propose that the reason that the democrats lost Congress in the 90s was because of people being extremely unhappy about the assault weapons ban. So, if Obama plans to get re-elected, why would he not distance himself from this issue?

2. If Obama is indeed going to push the AWB, what is he waiting for? It would only make sense to do it when his approval ratings are at their highest, indicating the most possible public support. His approval ratings continue to fall. If he were going to bring it before the Congress, what's the hold up?

3. Eric Holder claims that the reason for reinstating the AWB is to stop the flow of small arms to Mexico's drug cartels. He says that the Mexican police have encountered fully automatic assault rifle fire and hand grenades while attempting to stop the drug trafficking. Umm... how does the AWB stop that? Since when is any citizen capable of purchasing hand grenades? I don't remember any tax stamps that I can pay to get a frag grenade! For that matter, what FFL dealers sell automatic rifles to civilians? None around my town do.

4. Would it make sense to wait and see what effect, if any, the Washington D.C. ruling has on the crime rate there? If the crime rate in D.C. were to drop significantly following the ruling, Obama would have some pretty nasty egg on his face. Could this be why we've seen no serious, concerted effort to push the issue in the official sense, yet?
Micahweeks is offline  
Old June 9, 2009, 10:50 PM   #2
5whiskey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 1,561
Obama himself has said several times that "I don't think we'll be able to do that" when asked about the AWB. It wound up being a long-winded response sympathizing with the anti-gun crowd, but ending it with basically saying that it's not feasible and political suicide (if you read between the lines).

The AWB isn't to be pushed for quiet some time, I don't think.
5whiskey is offline  
Old June 9, 2009, 10:54 PM   #3
Micahweeks
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2009
Location: North Mississippi
Posts: 849
I believe you are right about pushing the AWB being political suicide. I still wonder how the AWB is supposed to help stop drug cartels from getting hand grenades, though. That one is just confusing to me.
Micahweeks is offline  
Old June 9, 2009, 11:01 PM   #4
COYOTE JLR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 26, 2009
Location: Washington Coast
Posts: 127
As I recall, Holder was reprimanded for those statements. It doesn't seem like anything that they're going to be able or willing to push for. Its one of those topics that seems to (for the dems at least) have fallen out of interest.

And it wouldn't stop anything. And any serious politician would know that. I imagine that story is simply a device to convince the uneducated public to support them. Its a sad thing.
COYOTE JLR is offline  
Old June 9, 2009, 11:01 PM   #5
J.Netto
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 26, 2009
Location: Elizabethtown, KY
Posts: 713
I don't think we have too much to worry about right now. - He would want to be re-elected.

If that happens, what about his next term?

Once he's in his second term, he can pretty much do whatever he wants. It's not like he's gonna care who he upsets, he's not going to care what people think of him, or how high his popularity rating is. Because, he doesn't have to worry about being re-elected.

They might be taking their time, or trying to be extremely quiet about how and when, But I guarantee they haven't forgot about us.

His second term is gonna be when we are all in trouble. Who knows? He could try to sign something into law next week.

The problem in Mexico is being used as an excuse to get all of this started. The first stepping stone. Take the blame off of himself, and put it somewhere else. He has to try to do something to get as many people on board before he attempts a AWB.:barf:

Last edited by J.Netto; June 10, 2009 at 07:01 AM.
J.Netto is offline  
Old June 10, 2009, 12:37 AM   #6
armsmaster270
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2008
Location: California
Posts: 1,948
They may get a few weapons from us but nothing like they get from other country's
__________________
http://www.armsmaster.net-a.googlepages.com
http://s239.photobucket.com/albums/f...aster270/Guns/
Retired LE, M.P., Sr. M.P. Investigator F.B.I. Trained Rangemaster/Firearms Instructor & Armorer, Presently Forensic Document Examiner for D.H.S.
armsmaster270 is offline  
Old June 10, 2009, 01:35 AM   #7
Amen
Member
 
Join Date: January 13, 2009
Posts: 17
Y'all forget that the President can not make the AWB happen. If it passes Congress he can sign it into law. So it does not matter if he wants it this week or in 7 years, he has to convince Congress who hear an awful lot from their constituents.
__________________
www.cruspsa.org

Last edited by Al Norris; June 10, 2009 at 09:39 AM. Reason: removed invective
Amen is offline  
Old June 10, 2009, 02:00 AM   #8
Micahweeks
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2009
Location: North Mississippi
Posts: 849
True, Amen, but the president does have the ability to propose legislation for Congressional review. Several presidents have done this in the past. I was expecting as much from a man who was so vehemently supportive of the AWB when he was in Illinois. But, who knows? Maybe, for once in our lifetimes, a politician actually LEARNED from the past and decided that reinstating a failed piece of legislation wasn't worth being voted out of office at the next election. Maybe there is hope for the man?

So the question has been answered about why I have heard nothing else from Obama about the issue. But, there is still the burning question of what Mexico police think the AWB is going to do to stop drug cartels from getting hand grenades.
Micahweeks is offline  
Old June 10, 2009, 05:47 AM   #9
alloy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
Who would have thought he could take over the banks, limit executive pay, spend trillions based on printing press capacity, get a racist on the supreme court, fill a cabinet with tax evaders, nationalize the auto industry and turn over a large portion to the unions, bow to despots around the world, attempt to control the media thru fairness, redistrict based on Acorn's census, decide the investment positions of legit investors, ok Iranian nuclear power, personally back Chevrolet warranties, bash Israel, label 50% of US citizens as possible terrorists, have magazine editors call him God, get all roofs painted white, and still practice long-term selective hearing around domestic radicals. For now reason is out the window....he's just getting wound up good. If the teleprompter decides to inform him of some perceived firearm crisis...And so it is written, so let it be done.
__________________
Quote:
The uncomfortable question common to all who have had revolutionary changes imposed on them: are we now to accept what was done to us just because it was done?
Angelo Codevilla

Last edited by alloy; June 10, 2009 at 07:26 AM. Reason: poor smilie choice
alloy is offline  
Old June 10, 2009, 06:56 AM   #10
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,688
Quote:
So, if Obama plans to get re-elected, why would he not distance himself from this issue?
Look at Obama's past gun record and his past support for much more restictive legislation than the AWB? Did that stop him from losing swing states with large NRA membership like Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida? It didn't; but it almost did - which is probably why you see Obama being much more ambivalent on this issue. He can't step away from it further without looking like a hypocrite; but he can't really afford to continue his past policy eother.

Quote:
2. If Obama is indeed going to push the AWB, what is he waiting for? It would only make sense to do it when his approval ratings are at their highest, indicating the most possible public support. His approval ratings continue to fall. If he were going to bring it before the Congress, what's the hold up?
Without a Democratic Congress to back him up, Obama loses a lot of power. Some 67 Democrats in the House signed a letter opposing an AWB (primarily because that is the kind of thing that would cost them their seats in the 2010 midterm elections). Obama needs those votes for his post 2010 agenda and in the near term, making those Congressmen fall on their swords and accept an AWB is going to exact a high price on his current agenda.

Not to mention that if an AWB did make it through the House, Obama has just put his Senate Majority Leader and several prominent Dem Senators in a very awkward position of either publicly thwarting their party leader or facing a serious re-election battle in 2010. Also not a move calculated to win him support for his more controversial programs.

Quote:
3.Umm... how does the AWB stop that?
As we all well know, Holder was speaking out of the wrong orifice. I would wager that many of the weapons traced to the United States did not come from gun shows but was Foreign Military Sales from the U.S. government to Mexico's law enforcement and police that later ended up in the hands of drug dealers.

Quote:
4. Could this be why we've seen no serious, concerted effort to push the issue in the official sense, yet?
I doubt it. A more likely explanation is that pushing through legislation that is iffy on constitutionality (like an AWB) is best done when you have the Supreme Court stacked to your liking. Given the ruling in Heller, such a question would come before the same Justices who approved Heller. Nobody in the anti-gun movement wants that.

All in all, there are dozens of good political reasons not to have an AWB fight right now, even if you sincerely wanted such a law. On the flip side, the only good reason to have the fight now is that you don't believe you will ever have a better chance at it.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old June 10, 2009, 07:17 AM   #11
Master Blaster
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: One of the original 13 Colonies
Posts: 2,027
Quote:
I would wager that many of the weapons traced to the United States did not come from gun shows but was Foreign Military Sales from the U.S. government to Mexico's law enforcement and police that later ended up in the hands of drug dealers.

An you would be right, a while back there was a shootout between corrupt police and the military, pretty much all of the police in a particular town including the mexican Federales from that area worked for the drug cartel.

The weapons I saw which were confiscated were full auto M-16 of recent manufacture (FN) which are only availible to the military and police, and a whole bunch of what appeared to be FALs and HK 91s. While some of those guns ORIGINATED in the US (the factory is here) they sure didn't come from a gunshow or a private citizen, and FN sure didnt sell them under the table to mexican drug lords. The ATF knows full well those guns came from Mexican or US military arsenals or were sold legally to the mexican Police/military.
__________________
The difference between Democrats and Republicans is like the difference between a poop sandwich, and a poop Sandwich with mustard.
Master Blaster is offline  
Old June 10, 2009, 08:41 AM   #12
4V50 Gary
Staff
 
Join Date: November 2, 1998
Location: Colorado
Posts: 16,919
If the US gubmint wanted to keep selective fire M-16s out of the hands of the Mexican cartels, it'd ask the Mexican gubmint to stop its soldiers from deserting with their M-16s.
__________________
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt. Molon Labe!
4V50 Gary is offline  
Old June 10, 2009, 08:45 AM   #13
Dustin0
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2008
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 701
If Obama is going to to push for a AWB its going to be second term. IF he gets back in look out.
Dustin0 is offline  
Old June 10, 2009, 08:57 AM   #14
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,090
Quote:
Who would have thought he could take over the banks, limit executive pay, spend trillions based on printing press capacity, get a racist on the supreme court, fill a cabinet with tax evaders, nationalize the auto industry and turn over a large portion to the unions, bow to despots around the world, attempt to control the media thru fairness, redistrict based on Acorn's census, decide the investment positions of legit investors, ok Iranian nuclear power, personally back Chevrolet warranties, bash Israel, label 50% of US citizens as possible terrorists, have magazine editors call him God, get all roofs painted white, and still practice long-term selective hearing around domestic radicals. For now reason is out the window....he's just getting wound up good. If the teleprompter decides to inform him of some perceived firearm crisis...And so it is written, so let it be done.
Geez, when you put it like that . . . .
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old June 10, 2009, 09:06 AM   #15
JWT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 16, 2007
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 3,166
Obama's record is one of strong support for gun control. He never met an anti-gun piece of legislation he didn't like. Gun control is not his priority at this time but once he gets through his other campaign promise priorities I do believe he'll go after guns. It's part of his ingrained Chicago heritage.
JWT is offline  
Old June 10, 2009, 10:09 AM   #16
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
I'm divided.

The thread (and the questions posed by the OP) is purely political. As such, it is off topic.

We have made some exceptions in the recent past to allow certain political threads, because of their utility and usefulness.

A good discussion on why firearms control is not on the immediate agenda of the Obama Administration, can have an educating effect upon those that are not aware, but use knee-jerk reactionism in commenting upon the issues.

Then again, it could just as easily spiral down into the hell-hole that was the old L&P forum.

I'll let this one run for a bit. It will be up to you, the members of the Firing Line, to keep your comments, and this thread, on the high road.

Failure to do so will result in not just the thread being closed, but also the individuals who could not control themselves, being banned from TFL.

You are warned.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old June 10, 2009, 10:18 AM   #17
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
I believe that the only reason he's not pushing the AWB is because Pelosi and others have stated that they will not support it. This I do not understand. They CLEARLY do support the ban. They have the ability to pass it, I believe. I don't know why they wouldn't. I'm glad, but I don't understand. I suppose it's probably because there may be a good number of dems who do not and will not support the ban and the leadership wants to look like a united party.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old June 10, 2009, 10:42 AM   #18
hogdogs
Staff In Memoriam
 
Join Date: October 31, 2007
Location: Western Florida panhandle
Posts: 11,069
Quote:
Failure to do so will result in not just the thread being closed, but also the individuals who could not control themselves, being banned from TFL.

Are all loss of control "felony failure to self control" or are there some "misdemeanors"?
Brent
hogdogs is offline  
Old June 10, 2009, 11:23 AM   #19
Micahweeks
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2009
Location: North Mississippi
Posts: 849
My apologies, Anitipitas. I genuinely thought the thread would fall under the rules as it pertains to the AWB, since many believe it is a violation of our 2nd Amendment rights. I misunderstood the rules.

Last edited by Micahweeks; June 10, 2009 at 11:27 AM. Reason: Fixed grammar. Would nice to apoogize to apologize to the staff without sounding like an uneducated teenager.
Micahweeks is offline  
Old June 10, 2009, 11:29 AM   #20
RedneckFur
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 14, 2007
Location: Sotheastern US
Posts: 1,421
I personally feel that if any AWB is to be reinstated, It will either be done late in the current term, or in the next term, depending on how favorable the current admistration is just prior to the 2012 elections.

I dont think that we'll get away scott free, so to speak, but I dont think we'll see UK style draconian gun bans, just yet.

Most important thing any of us can do is to write and call our representatives on a regular basis, and let them know just how you feel.
__________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
-George Orwell
RedneckFur is offline  
Old June 10, 2009, 11:34 AM   #21
JWT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 16, 2007
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 3,166
Agree 100% with RedneckFur on the importance of writing, calling, or E-mailing, Senators and Representative to let them know you want them to respect 2A rights and oppose anti-gun legislation (including AWB) whenever it's introduced. It does have an impact.
JWT is offline  
Old June 10, 2009, 11:52 AM   #22
vranasaurus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,175
Quote:
I believe that the only reason he's not pushing the AWB is because Pelosi and others have stated that they will not support it. This I do not understand. They CLEARLY do support the ban. They have the ability to pass it, I believe. I don't know why they wouldn't. I'm glad, but I don't understand. I suppose it's probably because there may be a good number of dems who do not and will not support the ban and the leadership wants to look like a united party.
You are correct that Pelosi would love nothing more than to bring the ban back. The problem is she does not have the ability to pass it. Too many house members from her party will not support the ban making it impossible for her to pass it. Even if she did have the votes in the house there is no way it gets past the senate, where even the majority leader will not support it. Why waste precious political capital on a bill that has almost no chance of getting passed, especially when she and the president need all of that political capital to use on other parts of their agenda which are far more important to them. Why alienate conservative democratic congressman whose support you'll need to pass health care, energy, environmental legislation?
vranasaurus is offline  
Old June 10, 2009, 11:52 AM   #23
Micahweeks
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2009
Location: North Mississippi
Posts: 849
Well, there is catch. I have had classes on law and spent a little bit of time studying Constitutional law, and the most literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is this.

The people eligible to serve in the armed forces but not enlisted are considered by definition to be a "militia." According to the Constitution, the type of militia necessary to a free state is a "well regulated" one. So, militia is us, the citizens. We get the right to bear arms. However, the language of the document reserves the right of the federal government to see that we are "well regulated."

So, with that being said, I don't dislike EVERY form of gun "control." I do believe that the Federalists did not intend for granny to have a rocket launcher. So, I know that I probably made a ton of enemies by saying that I am not against EVERY form of regulation, but that is how I interpret the law. I don't see the need to own rocket launchers. I feel it is perfectly reasonable for citizens not to own hand grenades. I even feel that a background check is good regulation.

If you are inclined to read a rather lengthy analysis of the language of the 2nd Amendment, I had to write one a while back for a class. I posted it on my web site since it was pretty popular with my classmates.

http://www.micahweeks.com/?p=32
Micahweeks is offline  
Old June 10, 2009, 01:18 PM   #24
vranasaurus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,175
Quote:
The people eligible to serve in the armed forces but not enlisted are considered by definition to be a "militia." According to the Constitution, the type of militia necessary to a free state is a "well regulated" one. So, militia is us, the citizens. We get the right to bear arms. However, the language of the document reserves the right of the federal government to see that we are "well regulated."
Based upon the vocabulary of the day "well regulated" meant "well trained". It had nothing to do with gun control.

And your interpretation runs counter to the Supreme Court's interpretation. The right to keep and bear arms is independent of service in the militia.
vranasaurus is offline  
Old June 10, 2009, 01:34 PM   #25
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,688
Quote:
According to the Constitution, the type of militia necessary to a free state is a "well regulated" one.
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

Quote:
Commas are used for a plethora of things in the English language.
http://www.guncite.com/second_amendment_commas.html

Frankly, you should just pretty much read everything at www.guncite.com as it addresses most of the points you raised, many of which are not novel as they have been raised by gun control activists in the past.

I'd also note that the interpretations you suggested were among the many amicus briefs filed in Heller vs. D.C. and after persuasive arguments on both sides, there were no takers (even among the dissenting opinion) arguing for the interpretation you put forth.

Finally, I'd say that your link discussing Obama's view of the Second Amendment gives short shrift to the fact that Obama supported a collective rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, even as the Heller case was being argued. He clearly wasn't relying on commas, well-regulated militias or anything else you suggest in your essay. He was flat out stating that only the National Guards and State Guards have any right to firearms under the Second Amendment.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13953 seconds with 7 queries