You are not logged in. Log In |  Register New Search
  Previous Topic    Next Topic  
advanced

Posted:  11/8/2012 9:54 AM #35054
CTD Blogger


Joined: 7/14/2009
Posts: 10687
Last Post: 7/31/2014
Subject: Why We’re Still At Least Two Years Away from an Assault Weapons Ban
From TheTruthAboutGuns.com By Nick Leghorn: The election results have riled up the firearms owning world, bringing flashbacks to those dark times when the assault weapons ban was the law of the land. The fear that a Chicago Democrat with no re-elections on the horizon would turn to gun control like a hungry wolf turns to a wounded deer was definitely a factor in Romney’s strong showing, but is that really something that we need to fear happening immediately? I don’t think so, and here’s why . . .

The president wields a lot of power, but legislation comes from the Congress. Specifically, if there were to be another AWB, it would germinate in the House of Representatives, which is the body that deals with finance (since the commerce clause of the Constitution is the hook that they use to legislate everything non-finance related). That’s where the original AWB came from, passed during the 103rd Congress.

Here’s the thing though: the legislation passed during a time when (A) gun owners still had the stink on them that plagued gun rights throughout the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s, and (B) both the House and Senate were solidly Democratic. In short, it was the perfect storm.

These days, I don’t think that’s possible. At all. The House retained (and extended) its Republican majority last night, with the states re-electing enough Republicans to maintain solid control in that body. And while Democrats might still have the Senate and the presidency, I don’t see a new AWB getting out of committee in this environment, let alone passing a vote in the House.

In short, for now I don’t think there’s anything to fear from an assault weapons ban proposal. I don’t see how it could possibly be enacted in the current climate. And while the president might not be as pandering as before when he had his own re-election to worry about, he still has the Congressional midterm elections to look forward to. And any movement on his part to do something radically Democratic in nature would push those states where Democrats in Congress are barely holding on to their seats over the edge into Republican control. He doesn’t want that.

The system works. For now, I don’t think that an AWB or anything like that is on the horizon. But check back in two years.



Posted:  11/17/2012 6:21 AM #35183
dullededge


Joined: 11/17/2012
Posts: 1
Last Post: 11/17/2012
Two words: Executive Order

Posted:  11/17/2012 7:27 AM #35185
Idaho


Joined: 11/17/2012
Posts: 2
Last Post: 11/17/2012
We might not see Obama push for a ban, but as we are already seeing in areas around Chicago and other parts of the country, they will pass taxes on purchases that will make it more and more difficult to afford to buy guns and shoot.  Look at the cost of ammo, guns, reloading materials etc now compared to before Mr. Obama.


Posted:  11/17/2012 9:16 AM #35187
NCIC105


Joined: 11/17/2012
Posts: 5
Last Post: 11/18/2012
Two very important and powerful words I might add!

Posted:  11/17/2012 10:06 AM #35189
Bif


Joined: 11/17/2012
Posts: 1
Last Post: 11/17/2012
"The president wields a lot of power, but legislation comes from the Congress. Specifically, if there were to be another AWB, it would germinate in the House of Representatives, which is the body that deals with finance (since the commerce clause of the Constitution is the hook that they use to legislate everything non-finance related). That’s where the original AWB came from, passed during the 103rd Congress."

Actually it won't come through legislation.  The president has already sent signals to the UN that he will be very open to signing a weapons trade treaty that would likely lead to an international ban on individual ownership of military style assault rifles and likely handguns also.  Such a treaty once signed will be a threat even if the current Senate will not ratify it.  Any future Senate could take it up and ratify it.
 
He has already shown a willingness (almost eagerness) to bypass the Congress and legislation when he pleases.  Valerie Jarret, his advisor and sometimes spokesperson has already stated that "Congress will be no problem".


Posted:  11/17/2012 10:39 AM #35190
The Clever Set


Joined: 11/17/2012
Posts: 1
Last Post: 11/17/2012
 The original poster is exactly correct. More gun owners need to inform themselves about the things they fear.
 
The president, even Obama, doesn't have the power to implement an assault weapons ban via an executive order. If this were possible, Clinton would've done it and saved himself the trouble of having to shepherd the original ban through Congress. The original ban, even in a Democratically-controlled House only passed by ONE VOTE, when Henry Hyde, a Illinois downstate Republican, changed his vote. He would certainly be impeached if he attempted to implement a ban in this way.

As far as the UN Small Arms Treaty, the president cannot sign the treaty until after it's ratified. The treaty will not be ratified anytime soon, because it has not even gotten out of the UN, and probably won't.
 
This is not to say Obama couldn't be a pain to gun owners, but I think he's got bigger fish to fry right now. 



Posted:  11/17/2012 2:25 PM #35195
horselips


Joined: 5/2/2012
Posts: 2012
Last Post: 7/31/2014
The Democrats and their RINO allies will just wait for the next conservative Supreme Court Justice to retire and be replaced by another Sotomayor or Kagan who can be counted on to uphold the progressive agenda. Then, wait a little longer for another couple of massacres to shock the public into supporting some kind of new controls - probably an "assault weapons" ban and a ban on Internet weapon and ammunition sales. It will all be touted as "reasonable" and will easily pass muster in the Supreme Court.
 
I'd like to personally thank every Libertarian and Republican who didn't vote for Romney in this election, for their self-righteous rationalizations, their arrogant selfishness, and their self-destructive stupidity.


Posted:  11/17/2012 5:07 PM #35198
wharfrat1940


Joined: 11/17/2012
Posts: 2
Last Post: 11/17/2012
Excellent post.  The problem is O's willingness to use the Executive Order!


Jump to:
 
  Previous Topic    Next Topic  

CheaperThanDirtForums