Assault Weapon Ban?

[JJVP]

Obama did not promise to reinstate the AWB. He did not say anything about banning handguns. He's not that stupid, he knows that as little support for a new AWB as there would be, there would be even less for banning handguns. He brought up handguns in the context of explaining how the AWB is not the end-all of solving gun crime; in essence, he was agreeing that "assault weapons" aren't the problem.[/i]

He said he wanted the assault weapons ban reintroduced.

Obama, Romney on assault weapons - YouTube

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Rock and Glock]

Let us not introduce or argue politics, please, or who said what when where and why.

[torgo1968]

I agree that he is unlikely to make a it a priority and it was far from a promise, but he did seem to imply an active role in the AWB going back into effect. "seeing if we can get the Assult Weapons Ban reintroduced." That says to me, more than just signing if it shows up.

The language a president uses is important. If he sees something as a priority, the language he uses will be definitive. The language you cited is about as wishy-washy as it gets. It allows him to be able to say to the gun control people, "See, I brought it up," while in reality, he didn't say anything at all. He knows it will never hit his desk. He's not going to spend one second twisting anyone's arm or call in a single marker to get one passed.

He said he wanted the assault weapons ban reintroduced.

See above. He didn't "promise" anything, which is what earlier posters were claiming.

Let us not introduce or argue politics, please, or who said what when where and why.

I agree with not arguing politics, as in Republican VS Democrat, etc. I don't think we're really doing that. And with all due respect, I think it's kind of important to establish what exactly these two men said. There is a gigantic difference between "promising" to get the AWB reinstated and what he actually said.

[Rock and Glock]

I think it's kind of important to establish what exactly these two men said.

While I would generally agree with you, I will not argue how many angels dance on the head of a pin.

There are transcripts and videos which will tell anyone with an inquiring mind exactly who said what to whom when.

What is the earliest that it [AWB] could take effect is passed?

The above is the question, and discussing anything else will get this thread closed very quickly. We don't need to preface any commentary with political conjecture or analysis. If you can't post without that degree of compliance, don't post.

[Hopyard]

On the question only--- "What is the earliest that it [AWB] could take effect is passed?" Congress has an amazing
ability to rush legislation that it wishes to pass through the process, get it to a President, and get it signed. DAYS.
Now note, the key word here is "Congress." If there is no consensus in Congress, some overwhelming desire by
the bulk of the critters to pass something, legislation takes forever.

SO, earliest--regardless of who is in the WH, if a veto proof majority of both houses were clamoring for an AWB,
it would pass and go into effect in days whether or not a President agreed, and barring a judge issuing an injunction
for one reason or another.

On topic, what happens with an AWB is up to Congress ultimately. The only power a President has on legislation beyond
political arm twisting and Saturday morning chats, is THE VETO. A President can demand that Congress gives everyone
a chocolate Easter Bunny, but it ain't gonna happen as legislation just because it was asked for.

[msgt/ret]

While I doubt there may be a total ban what is the possibility of more onerous controls by use of the Executive Order?

[Phillep Harding]

If everything fell his way, the end of 2013.

Obama had to worry about being re-elected, so he did not try anything in his first term. If he is re-elected, he is free to try all sorts of stunts with executive orders and private instructions to the heads of various Departments. He would have an even better chance if he gets some of his choices seated as Judges. I don't recall that "recess appointment" of his ever being kicked out of office, so he may just thumb his nose at Congress once again and bypass them altogether with some more "recess appointments".

IMO, if he is re-elected, the odds on him succeeding in imposing some sort of restrictive gun control on us will increase, right up to the day he leaves office. So far, Congress has shown it simply lacks the will to slap him down.

We are focused on Gun Control. That is just a small part of the danger we face. Argentina went through something like what we are now going through, reading what Fernando had to say about the fall of Argentina is - unpleasently familiar.

SURVIVING IN ARGENTINA: Argentine Collapse

[sniper58]

What's to stop bumnuts from simply signing yet another executive order? The Constitution hasn't stopped him from pushing the envelop. Why assume that will change?

[Crowman]

I'm hoping someone more knowledgeable about Congress can help out with the timeline. Let's say that Obama is re-elected and he makes good on his promise to reinstate the Assault Weapon Ban. What is the earliest that it could take effect is passed?

If you are asking the question because you intend to purchase an AR15 or the like of one, just go buy it and you will no longer have to worry.

Technically the term "Assault Weapon" is a misnomer. They are dubbed as such to make certain type rifles "scary" to the misinformed. For the most part the ownership of a military type weapons(assault weapons) are not readily available to citizens. What I am talking about are automatic weapons, machine guns, sub machine guns, etc.

[torgo1968]

What's to stop bumnuts from simply signing yet another executive order? The Constitution hasn't stopped him from pushing the envelop. Why assume that will change?

His use of executive orders and such was as objectionable to me as you. However, he didn't do any regarding guns. There's no reason to think that will change.

[mlr1m]

While I doubt there may be a total ban what is the possibility of more onerous controls by use of the Executive Order?

This is what worries me. With an executive order the congress can sit back and do nothing and it automatically becomes law. The can vote to kill it if they choose to vote. They can also choose to do nothing and let it take effect. Then they could t ruefully claim that they never voted for it.
In that case it would take effect in sixty or ninety day I believe?

Michael

[Richard58]

I believe an assault weapons ban or high cap mag ban could be put in place after the election by either elected but probably not. But I don't think besides those two items in the pervious sentence anything else will be or could be banned for years to come since there is so many 2nd adm supporters, hunters, sportsmen and sports ladies out there in the USA still. But I do believe by the 2020's us gun rights folks just might be out breed to say the least in the most nice way of putting it I can say. I feel that will come to pass and I hate to see it , and for my children's sake. There will be a lot of people in this country and coming into this country that will vote like a californian or a chicago thinker. I will say this also, who ever gets in office this go around is going to have his hands full when the balloon goes up in the middle east and the great recession that is I think will only get worse. I kept my statements as neutral as possible without getting into the politics of the matter.

[FLSurfdog]

Obama has shown himself to be very good at going around Congress. I wouldn't put it past him once the reelection problem is behind him to sign an executive order the next time there is some kind of mass shooting.

Dick Morris on the radio the other day said that the U.N. is modifying the Small Arms Treaty so that they only need 60 member nations to approve (not a problem). Hillary and Obama will sign after the election win or lose, and unless the Senate takes it up and it and rejects it, it becomes law of the land. That is why it is critically important to not only defeat Obama, but to take the Senate as well. I may not have gotten all of Dick Morris's explanation correct, but I believe I'm pretty close to what he was saying. Obama and Hillary want this treaty whether good for the US or not.

[zacii]

Regardless of who lives in the White House, another AWB is always a possibility.

So when's the earliest it could happen? Tomorrow.

Tomorrow should be the answer because the seeds are already there. We must fight against it at every opportunity by educating people against the superstitious stigma surrounding semi-automatic, and select-fire weapons.
One way to do it, is to destroy the term 'assault weapon'. Just because a weapon may be designed for use by the military, doesn't mean it's an 'assault' weapon. It is actually a 'defense' weapon.

If we can change the nomenclature, then there is no need for an AWB; for all we have are defense weapons.

Sent from my Galaxy S2

[SFury]

The treaty will do nothing in the US as far as laws go if we agree to it. What it would do is drive up prices for firearms and ammunition coming in from overseas.

Treaties do not override the laws in our borders. Our founding fathers made certain of that.

The treaty also will not approved by both houses at this time. As long as we keep pro-2A legislators in the house, neither a new AWB or the Small Arms Treaty will be accepted by the American leadership. They are dead in the water for now, and hopefully will continue to stay that way.