The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old November 7, 2012, 05:37 PM   #26
nate45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,746
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
It is hard to see a massive change in the house in the next 2 year election cycle. Nor does the Senate seem likely have a filibuster proof majority in 2 years.
You beat me to it.

Plus, nothing happened from the pro-gun control side in the last four years. Gun control measures aren't really anywhere on the agenda for the foreseeable future either. The congress and President have their hands full with taxes, the economy and deficit.
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
(>_<)
nate45 is offline  
Old November 7, 2012, 05:58 PM   #27
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Midterm elections are notoriously disastrous for second term presidents. Convention would dictate that the Dems would suffer significant loses. Of course, convention would dictate that Obama winning this election was nigh on impossible too, so...
__________________
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 November 7, 2012, 06:00 PM   #28
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,510
Quote:
It is hard to see a massive change in the house in the next 2 year election cycle.
I don't know. Last night was pretty ugly for a bunch of 2010 freshmen.

However, many of the 2006 freshmen, despite party affiliation, have A ratings from the NRA and a good record on guns. Support for the 2nd Amendment doesn't split along party lines.

Back to the question of new Justices, they can be hard to predict. Take the case of Justice Souter. I doubt the folks pushing for his appointment really expected him to end up ruling the way he did on many things.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old November 7, 2012, 06:16 PM   #29
SPEMack618
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,476
Okay, granting that Congress must enact legislation, but what is to stop the President from enacting an excutive order that bans the production and transfer of standard capacity magazines like President George H.W. Bush did with the import ban?
__________________
NRA Life Member
Big Sister: "You should be sponsored by Allen"
Me: "If you can't shoot good, at least look good walking to the firing line."
Big Sister: "Can you not afford a Pelican? Then buy an Allen gun bag."
SPEMack618 is offline  
Old November 7, 2012, 06:41 PM   #30
jhenry
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2006
Location: Ozarks
Posts: 1,813
Good question, nothing I can think of. This current president has shown a remarkable lack of regard for our Constitution, an an equally remarkable adherence to his own founding principals and biases. I see dark times ahead on several fronts. The 2A front, the astronomical debt he continues to saddle us with, issues with our allies, issues with the very real nuclear threat from Iran and our only real mideast partner Israel, and a sharply divided citizenry. Divided to a degree we have not seen since the Civil War. The whole mess just makes me terribly sad. I literally feel exactly the same as I did when my father died 1-19-11. A formerly strong and vigorous man, a WWII and Korea vet who worked, made his way, raised 4 sons and raised them right. A good man all around, with some normal human frailties. Sunken with cancer, and dead at home leaving memories of what was. This feels like that.

On the firearms issue though, I do think he will take action. His base demands it, he has promised it, he has disdain for us, and no mistake about it. He will act. What it will be is up for debate. I think he will come after components and ammo, not so much the actual firearms. The exception I would not be surprised about would be the very evil and crime causing semi auto rifles that look scary. Armed free men are the enemy of his ilk, the antipathy they feel is visceral and should not be underestimated my friends. I do not think it is alarmist to say this, I think it would be intellectually dishonest to ignore it.
__________________
"A Liberal is someone who doesn't care what you do, as long as it's mandatory". - Charles Krauthammer
jhenry is offline  
Old November 7, 2012, 07:08 PM   #31
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by SPEMack618
Okay, granting that Congress must enact legislation, but what is to stop the President from enacting an excutive order that bans the production and transfer of standard capacity magazines like President George H.W. Bush did with the import ban?
You have to realize, there's a big difference between "What would stop him from...." and the actual implications of doing so.

What would stop me from suing you, right now, for slander and libel?

Absolutely nothing, that's what.

I just wouldn't get anywhere with it, because I have nothing to base it on. I could do it, but you'd be really angry and probably find a way to legitimately counter-sue me.

Right?

Certainly, the President COULD do all sorts of nasty things by Executive Order. Fortunately, Executive Orders are limited by the Constitutional powers actually designated to the Executive Branch.

In other words, he'd get sued.

Also, certain powers are likewise delegated to congress, such as control of interstate commerce. Congress, even when they philosophically agree with the President, guards their powers jealously. Very, VERY jealously.

Overstepping either of those bounds (probably both) by a significant margin could turn out very, very bad for the President.
__________________
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 November 7, 2012, 07:28 PM   #32
RamItOne
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2011
Posts: 983
I don't see anything (if anything happens) happening till after mid term elections. Think the dems are still hurting from the last mid term loss, they won't want to do anything drastic until then. If anything they'll want to have the reps stonewall everything the first two years to help them during mid term elections.
__________________
M&P- the other dark meat

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...rtant/DJyvnHz0
RamItOne is offline  
Old November 7, 2012, 07:29 PM   #33
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by SPEMack618
Okay, granting that Congress must enact legislation, but what is to stop the President from enacting an excutive order that bans the production and transfer of standard capacity magazines like President George H.W. Bush did with the import ban?
This might be a good time to move back toward legal issues by hitting the reset button on what an executive order is. An executive order is a directive from the President to the administrative branch of the government providing directions on how to implement or execute existing laws. Executive orders can only act within the boundaries of existing laws.

So how did President Bush ban the importation of 'assault weapons?' The Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 925 already controlled the importation of weapons.

Quote:
(d) The Attorney General shall authorize a firearm or ammunition to be imported or brought into the United States or any possession thereof if the firearm or ammunition -
(3) ... is generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes
Congress enacted the Gun Control Act of 1968 but left it to the administrative branch to sort out the specific definition of the term "sporting purposes." Bush simply instructed the Secretary of the Treasury (law later changed to Attorney General) to clarify the term "sporting purposes" to exclude assault weapons.

There is no law that I am aware of that gives the federal government discretion over the domestic manufacture or ownership of magazines. Until such a law is enacted, the President cannot issue an executive order on that subject.
gc70 is offline  
Old November 7, 2012, 07:30 PM   #34
SPEMack618
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,476
So, in essence, Mr. Pfleuger, you're saying that the CINC could do it, if he so chose, but that it would be like first girlfriend ugly if he did?

That makes perfect sense, but raises another question.

How did President H.W. Bush get buy with enacting the import ban?

Was it because the support for gun rights just wasn't there like it is today?
__________________
NRA Life Member
Big Sister: "You should be sponsored by Allen"
Me: "If you can't shoot good, at least look good walking to the firing line."
Big Sister: "Can you not afford a Pelican? Then buy an Allen gun bag."
SPEMack618 is offline  
Old November 7, 2012, 07:34 PM   #35
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 2,771
Quote:
what is to stop the President from enacting an excutive order
Yes, I have thought about this in the past, but it seems unlikely of course I may eat my words one day.

However, I wonder how likely it might be from a legal and political standpoint to see departments or agencies within the Federal Government implement additional restrictions. For instance the Department of Homeland Security restricting and/or charging additional fees related to ammo sales. What about the Department of Health and Human Services implement a Trauma Center fee on firearms and ammo sales? These are things that might simply fly under the radar for the average citizen and have little negative political impact.

So, I’m not sure if the above are legitimate hypothetical examples, but could it happen from a legal standpoint?
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
BarryLee is offline  
Old November 7, 2012, 07:47 PM   #36
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,510
Quote:
These are things that might simply fly under the radar for the average citizen and have little negative political impact.
That's where those of us in the gun culture come in. Back in 2007, OSHA proposed Standard 1910.109, which would have lumped "small arms ammunition, small arms ammunition primers, [and] smokeless propellant" in with high explosives, causing all sorts of logistical nightmares. The NSSF and NRA got involved, Congressmen were contacted, and OSHA quickly backtracked, claiming that it was a misunderstanding.

That's how we keep the sneaky backdoor stuff from going through. There's always a way to apply pressure, we just have to stay informed and active.

gc70: thanks for a more concise explanation than I could muster.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old November 7, 2012, 07:56 PM   #37
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 2,771
Quote:
That's how we keep the sneaky backdoor stuff from going through. There's always a way to apply pressure, we just have to stay informed and active.
Yes, excellent point.

I suspect we need to be vigilant about reviewing the email updates from the NRA and contacting our representatives. Also, The Firing Line itself can serve as a good clearinghouse to assist us in differentiating between legitimate concerns and outlandish rumor.
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
BarryLee is offline  
Old November 7, 2012, 08:06 PM   #38
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,510
Quote:
The Firing Line itself can serve as a good clearinghouse to assist us in differentiating between legitimate concerns and outlandish rumor.
Yep, and believe it or not, Snopes has someone knowledgable about firearms issues.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old November 7, 2012, 08:22 PM   #39
SPEMack618
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by gc70
Congress enacted the Gun Control Act of 1968 but left it to the administrative branch to sort out the specific definition of the term "sporting purposes." Bush simply instructed the Secretary of the Treasury (law later changed to Attorney General) to clarify the term "sporting purposes" to exclude assault weapons.
Thank you, gc70. I had no idea that the Import Ban was also interrlated with GCA '68.

And to go along with what Tom Servo and BarryLe have said, I love The Firing Line for the accurate, boots on the ground reporting I can read hear concerning laws and civil rights. It has helped end many a conniption fit around the Fraternity House over the "boys in blue berets."
__________________
NRA Life Member
Big Sister: "You should be sponsored by Allen"
Me: "If you can't shoot good, at least look good walking to the firing line."
Big Sister: "Can you not afford a Pelican? Then buy an Allen gun bag."
SPEMack618 is offline  
Old November 7, 2012, 09:44 PM   #40
GodWeTrust
Member
 
Join Date: October 15, 2008
Posts: 36
I think I'm more concerned with the UN Arms Treaty. I confess that I haven't been able to digest most of the information that I've heard about it, but is this the end-run around the Constitution that they need?

Oh, and it looks like gas is going back up.
__________________
SP101, M&P9c, Bersa 390, Savage MarkIIGLY
GodWeTrust is offline  
Old November 7, 2012, 09:48 PM   #41
seeker_two
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 31, 2002
Location: Deep in the Heart of the Lone Star State (TX)
Posts: 1,729
Could Obama use his EO powers to define GCA'68 according to the terms of the Small Arms Treaty? That would be the ultimate end-run.....and not below him...
__________________
Proud member of Gun Culture 2.0......
seeker_two is offline  
Old November 7, 2012, 10:04 PM   #42
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,510
Quote:
I confess that I haven't been able to digest most of the information that I've heard about it, but is this the end-run around the Constitution that they need?
No. The ATT addresses the commerce of firearms between one nation-state and another. It has nothing to do with domestic production or distribution.

Given the process that importers have to go through, it's doubtful it'll affect the import of foreign civilian arms either.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old November 7, 2012, 10:12 PM   #43
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by GodWeTrust
I think I'm more concerned with the UN Arms Treaty. I confess that I haven't been able to digest most of the information that I've heard about it, but is this the end-run around the Constitution that they need?
Tom Servo is correct about the contents of the UN Arms Trade Treaty.

More generally, treaties cannot end-run the Constitution. Treaties are just another form of federal law and must conform to the Constitution just like all other federal laws.

Last edited by gc70; November 7, 2012 at 10:49 PM. Reason: correct treaty name
gc70 is offline  
Old November 7, 2012, 10:47 PM   #44
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
Treaties alone cannot do a thing. I really don't care how many are signed and then ratified by a 2/3 vote of the Senate.

Unless and until actual laws are legislated, a treaty by itself is nothing more than words on a piece of paper... Put another way, unless the Congress enacts (and a president signs) enabling legislation, treaties are worthless.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old November 7, 2012, 10:59 PM   #45
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,510
To supplement Al's post, I'd refer folks to Reid v. Covert on the matter of treaties:

Quote:
There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.
Please disseminate this information to you friends and neighbors. A lot of scaremongering is going to take place in the next few months, and you'll be doing everyone a favor by debunking it. We need to keep our eyes peeled for sneaky regulatory stuff, and distractions like the ATT or Feinstein's new doomed AWB proposal only distract us from that.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old November 8, 2012, 09:54 AM   #46
Patriot86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2010
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer
It is hard to see a massive change in the house in the next 2 year election cycle. Nor does the Senate seem likely have a filibuster proof majority in 2 years.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...p-filibusters/

Quote:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Wednesday that he will try to push through a change to Senate rules that would limit the GOP’s ability to filibuster bills.
That thing I said about bending the rules before...

No reason to run round like chickens with our heads cut off though, the House is still in the control of 2A friendly politicians.
Patriot86 is offline  
Old November 8, 2012, 10:16 AM   #47
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,792
Behaviorally, the Pres. deliberately avoided any strong actions on gun control. When they had the strong majority in 2008, nothing happened. Yes, the usual suspects said the usual things. If one recalls GWB trotted out flag burning amendments, abortion amendments and the like every once in awhile to get base support- but he really did nothing.

When, in this election, the GOP actually had folks who truly pushed their extreme views, those senatorial candidates got clobbered.

Since the realistic pols will take this lesson, I doubt the realists will let an extreme divisive gun control position get rolling. Yes, you can say the realist views of the first term were a set up for the UN to come a calling. I think the wheels are turning for 2016 and while there may be rhetoric, the poll numbers of gun control (most of the country are against) will not lead to legislation with significant impact.

The lesson of pushing extremes is out there now.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old November 8, 2012, 10:17 AM   #48
Don P
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 17, 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,812
I concur with Al on this thought, with the possible very long effects that could come from this,

Quote:
Stevno, Judicial appointments (not just the SCOTUS, but district and circuit courts) is the single biggest thing, to my mind. Whatever else happens, these appointments are for life and if the trend continues (the trend of appointing younger judges), then we will be saddled with judges whose ideology will endanger the gains made., for years to come.
__________________
NRA Life Member, NRA Range Safety Officer, IDPA Safety Officer, USPSA NROI Range Officer
As you are, I once was, As I am, You will be.
Don P is offline  
Old November 8, 2012, 10:48 AM   #49
jmortimer
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
This wishful thinking is why I said we only have "P.C." discussions here. This is the Pollyanna effect. Anyone who thinks that there will be a push by people who have publicly stated they support enacting restrictions are quickly branded as kooks. We know for a fact that a strong majority of members of the party in (2/3) control are in favor of gun control and it is a badge of honor to say you are for gun control. But mention that the UN arms treaty just went back up for negotiation today,big surprise,and you are Chicken Little. No I don't think much of that, but I have been whining about judicial appointments for the last four years and when you stack four years of judicial appointments on top of the last four years, you have a serious problem. As I see it, the "P.C." part of this is akin the proverbial circular firing squad, well they caucus with the wrong side, but "that boy sure do love his guns," they vote for bills in lock step with the wrong side, but "that boy sure love him some guns" and they vote for judicial nominees in lock step with the wrong side but, "boy howdy, he really do love them guns." And so what if their party is in favor of idiotic gun laws, "they really love them there guns." Now lets replace Justice Kennedy with a Kagan/Sotomayor Clone and, "sorry I voted in lock-step with my party for the nomination of Justice X, but I sure do love me my guns." That is why I believe we fail to keep it real. If you voted for a "D" that loves them there guns, you just put a another nail in the coffin.

Last edited by Brian Pfleuger; November 8, 2012 at 12:25 PM.
jmortimer is offline  
Old November 8, 2012, 12:17 PM   #50
Gaerek
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 3, 2012
Location: Arizona
Posts: 939
Keep in mind that there are several bills in both houses of congress that would give CWP holders to carry in any state that issues permits. One of the most popular, and least restrictive was introduced by Senators from the party that is usually more anti-gun. As has been said, the there will be few, if any anti-gun laws passed in the next 4 years. Congress won't shift one way or another dramatically (though the Senate might have a chance of changing hands in two years...I repeat, MIGHT) and the house will pretty much prevent any anti-gun bill from hitting the president's desk.

The biggest concern should be Judicial appointments. And we likely won't see the effects of that for a decade or more.
Gaerek 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 02:18 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 0.15996 seconds with 7 queries