The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old January 14, 2013, 02:19 AM   #1
jbat35
Member
 
Join Date: February 6, 2012
Posts: 24
What can President Obama do in terms of passing a ban at this point.

After the NRA meeting, it looks like the congress majority sides with the NRA and is against any further gun control. I have seen multiple articles on this, so I assume it is for the most part true.

Obama and O'Biden said that if they cannot get congress to side, they will pull an executive order to pass a ban or more control legislation. If they try this, supreme court will strike it down faster than they can blink. Supreme Court and the Constitution are a very close bond.

So what can he do? Only large power I see is a presidential veto, which only works on an already written bill when in the process of being entered. He has locked himself into this "no compromise" corner, or so it seems, and staying there will just continue to anger those who can help him more and more.

I may be completely wrong, I have a little knowledge on government, but not much. Anyone see any way he could pass a bill or get some form of control. At this point I assume anything will be behind the back, and most likely a little "grey area." I am just hoping I am right, because if I am, this means this whole crisis situation could be nearly over. The fight may not be over, but it could be a massive boost and victory that we have pushed it this far and got him to this point.

Lastly, great job and thanks to you all who have been active in battling this possible ban. The community has shown its strength, and even though we are not in the clear, it brought everyone together and could be a large change in logic for most to stop blaming guns and start blaming what actually causes people to want to kill people, regardless of what method. Keep up with contacting your state reps and senators, and keep the word spreading!
jbat35 is offline  
Old January 14, 2013, 08:34 AM   #2
breakingcontact
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2012
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 736
Several threads on EOs I believe.

What can they do? ANYTHING the courts let them get away with. What are they supposed to be able to do? Perhaps tighten up some existing regulations.
breakingcontact is offline  
Old January 14, 2013, 08:34 AM   #3
Doyle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 20, 2007
Location: Starkville, MS (new to MS)
Posts: 4,775
I personally don't think he could do any banning that would hold up in court. There are a couple of things that he could do though (and that would actually be good).

1. He could order tough enforcement of the required reporting of mental illness to the NICS system. Way too many wackos don't get properly reported.

2. He could order the Justice Dept to take a hard line on convicted felons who get caught with guns. They can't re-offend if they are locked away for long sentences.
Doyle is offline  
Old January 14, 2013, 08:41 AM   #4
jason_iowa
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 30, 2011
Posts: 686
Nothing. If you are abiding current laws you have nothing to worry about. Although some of the current laws are absurd such as restricting automatic weapons and suppressors.
jason_iowa is offline  
Old January 14, 2013, 09:22 AM   #5
jmr40
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 15, 2008
Location: Georgia
Posts: 5,947
Banning production of rifles may be difficult, but limiting mag capacity could be done legally I think. I could also see "assault rifles", whatever that is, being lumped into the same category as current NFA firearms with registration and taxes on them.

I think they know a ban won't fly, but they can make it difficult and expensive to own the types of guns they want to ban. Which they hope will accomplish the same thing.

I also look for laws to make folks who do own them more accountable. There are some who would push for a law that says that if your AR gets stolen and used in a crime, then you go to jail.
jmr40 is offline  
Old January 14, 2013, 10:01 AM   #6
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,889
A president's executive order only allows him to direct the enforcement of laws passed by congress. The only manner in which a president can create new laws or regulation via exectutive order is if discretionary power to do so is granted to him via a law passed by congress. So, the question then is what discretionary power does the president have in enforcing current gun laws?

Most of the discretionary power of the administration when it comes to gun control is granted by the Gun Control Act of 1968. The primary way in which executive orders might be exercised through the '68 GCA is via the "sporting purpose" clause which was later used to ban a number of so-called "assault weapons". The President could possibly order the ATF to review the "sporting purpose" test in order to possibly classify more guns as "assault weapons" and thus ban them. The "sporting purpose" test of the '68 GCA, however, applies only to imported firearms and is already enforced about as stringently as it can be. I think they've probably already played the "sporting purpose" test about as much as they can.

Now, the President could also actually do something positive via executive order that would, I think, benefit everyone. An EO directing the ATF to aggressively prosecute illegal activity such as making false statements on 4473's and straw purchases might actually make a difference in the amount of gun crime and, because these activities are already illegal, would not negatively affect law-abiding gun owners. This, IMHO, would be the smartest thing to do because it would allow the president to "throw a bone" to the gun-control advocates by "doing something" without stepping on the toes of the NRA or law-abiding gun owners.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old January 14, 2013, 10:24 AM   #7
dlb435
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2009
Posts: 654
Don't be so sure. The oath says "protect and defend". There is a lot of latitude in that. Any executive order could stay in place until the congress has a chance to review it. Congress could just support it, look the other way, write it into law or overturn it.
GHW Bush banned the importation of UZI weapons into this country. (long story, check the history) The ban pretty much still stands. That was over 20 years ago.
BTW - Did you see Colin Powell on Meet the Press? He indentifies himself as a moderate Republican. He advocated a ban on assault rifles and some kind of national firearms licence.
I'm still waiting to see what the Biden recommendations look like.
dlb435 is offline  
Old January 14, 2013, 10:24 AM   #8
breakingcontact
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2012
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 736
Quote:
but they can make it difficult and expensive to own the types of guns they want to ban
I think this should be our biggest concern. They've got lots of the gun community running around in circles in a buying frenzy. Others are worried they are going to "come and take them."

I doubt they'll go for a knockout punch, when they know they can keep working the body over and over.

Sure, you have the right to own arms, but they can mess with ranges based on environmental "concerns", tax ammo like crazy, make gun makers jump through even more hoops, limit FFLs, increase the steps to buy guns, introduce training requirements and on and on. I now understand why the NRA is unwilling to budge an inch, because that's how the left knows they can realistically win this thing, by chipping away at our rights.

The next time I hear someone talk about the second amendment being about hunting I may get ill.
breakingcontact is offline  
Old January 14, 2013, 11:09 AM   #9
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,686
The morning pundits seem convinced that an AWB can't get through the Congress. Reid is complaining that it is even being given to him to consider as it hurts elections in rural areas.

The House is even a tougher challenge.

However, tightening up mental health reporting might make it. Banning 'clips' - well that seems to be the language changing - can't tell. Probably not.

As far as executive order - we have a big thread on that - so take it there.

Closed.
__________________
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  
Closed Thread

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 05:07 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 0.08012 seconds with 7 queries