Assault Weapon Ban?

This is a discussion on Assault Weapon Ban? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by FLSurfdog Dick Morris on the radio the other day said that the U.N. is modifying the Small Arms Treaty so that they ...

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 101
Like Tree79Likes

Thread: Assault Weapon Ban?

  1. #31
    VIP Member Array nedrgr21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    3,472
    Quote Originally Posted by FLSurfdog View Post
    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.
    It takes a 2/3 majority of the Senate to approve a treaty - it won't happen.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    Senior Member Array Spidey2011's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    887
    Not anytime soon. The last bunch that tried it got ousted fairly quickly, and anyone of the goons in office now know that it would be political suicide to vote for something like that.

    If it has to get through the house, it ain't gonna happen. If it can be bypassed by executive order, such as would probably be attempted with a UN Arms Treaty, then it might be possible. Like I said though, I doubt anything will happen anytime soon. I'll be buying some AR uppers and lowers in the near future, though. Regardless of who wins the election.
    Phillep Harding likes this.

  4. #33
    Senior Member Array The Old Anglo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Orlando,Fl
    Posts
    659
    Never Trust a Politician with Anything that Matters to You. NoBama2012.

  5. #34
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,597
    Just want to point out that some of the participants here really don't know how limited an Executive Order is
    as a tool. An EO can not be used to make law, no matter how much some people think so. It is a directive
    to the military or to the civilian workforce, it is not law.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  6. #35
    Distinguished Member Array skysoldier29's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Miami Florida / Michigan
    Posts
    1,260
    Quote Originally Posted by nedrgr21 View Post
    1:16:47
    "Weapons designed for soldiers ... don't belong on our streets" - the problem is his ignorance, when he says this he is referring to semi-auto only AR15's.
    There is a big difference between the Colt M-4 that I carry in Afghanistan than the RRA AR-15 I have under my bed. From the little I have read on the subject recently, guns can easily be political suicide for anyone voting to restrict gun ownership. I have not done the research, but I wonder two things. 1. What was the actual effect of the Clinton era assault weapons ban on violent crime in the country. 2. What were the congressional election results preceding the ban? Did the Republicans retake either the House or Senate?

  7. #36
    VIP Member Array nedrgr21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    3,472
    I know that, you know that, problem is Obama and 40% of Americans don't.

    No effect on crime, it only raised market prices of AR's.

    Dem's took a beating.

  8. #37
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Just want to point out that some of the participants here really don't know how limited an Executive Order is
    as a tool. An EO can not be used to make law, no matter how much some people think so. It is a directive
    to the military or to the civilian workforce, it is not law.
    I have always been under the impression that only Congress can create laws. That agencies such as BATFE, OSHA or EPa can only issue rules. But Haven't the Courts said that those rulings have the effect of law? That they must be obeyed? I just assumed that Executive Orders worked the same way. That they are rules with the effect of law.

    Michael

  9. #38
    Ex Member Array Pythius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Queens
    Posts
    462
    Quote Originally Posted by tokerblue View Post
    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?
    ain't gonna happen unless the Democrats win a super-majority in the Senate.

    and that ain't gonna happen. :)

    as for Executive Orders and Executive Discretion, no POTUS can make new law at will. He can only fenagle a way to pick & choose how to enforce existing law.

    but no, no President can create a new AWB on his own.

  10. #39
    Senior Member Array Phillep Harding's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    821
    Quote Originally Posted by Pythius View Post
    & choose how to enforce existing law.
    Even taking what you say as the exact truth, I am not reassured, considering how twisted various laws have gotten.

    "Navigable water ways" anyone? That is what the feds use to claim jurisdiction over run off ditches that might get wet once every ten years.

  11. #40
    Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado at 11,650'
    Posts
    12,241
    I have always been under the impression that only Congress can create laws. That agencies such as BATFE, OSHA or EPa can only issue rules. But Haven't the Courts said that those rulings have the effect of law? That they must be obeyed? I just assumed that Executive Orders worked the same way. That they are rules with the effect of law.
    i mainly speak to one agency, the IRS, but a lot of this will apply to other agencies.

    You are correct, Congress writes the Laws or Statutes. Agencies are generally delegated the authority to write the Regulations which interpret the Laws ("Interpretative Regulations") Sometimes Congress delegates to the agency the specific power to write regulations that have the force of statutes and Congress then specifically notes such regulations have the force of statutes ("Statutory Regulations"). For instance, the Consolidated Return Regulations written by the IRS are Statutory Regulations and have the force of statutes/laws.

    Here's the Wiki explanation:

    Federal statutory enactment and codification

    After the President signs a bill into law (or Congress enacts it over his veto), it is delivered to the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) where it is assigned a law number, and prepared for publication as a slip law.[37] Public laws, but not private laws, are also given legal statutory citation by the OFR. At the end of each session of Congress, the slip laws are compiled into bound volumes called the Statutes at Large, and they are known as session laws. The Statutes at Large present a chronological arrangement of the laws in the exact order that they have been enacted.

    Public laws are incorporated into the United States Code, which is a codification of all general and permanent laws of the United States. The main edition is published every six years by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives, and cumulative supplements are published annually.[38][39] The U.S. Code is arranged by subject matter, and it shows the present status of laws with amendments already incorporated in the text that have been amended on one or more occasions.

    Federal regulatory promulgation and codification

    Congress often enacts statutes that grant broad rulemaking authority to federal agencies. Often, Congress is simply too gridlocked to draft detailed statutes that explain how the agency should react to every possible situation, or Congress believes the agency's technical specialists are best equipped to deal with particular fact situations as they arise. Therefore, federal agencies are authorized to promulgate regulations. Under the principle of Chevron deference, regulations normally carry the force of law as long as they are based on a reasonable interpretation of the relevant statutes.

    Regulations are adopted pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act. Regulations are first proposed and published in the Federal Register (FR or Fed. Reg.) and subject to a public comment period. Eventually, after a period for public comment and revisions based on comments received, a final version is published in the Federal Register. The regulations are codified and incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) which is published once a year on a rolling schedule.

    Besides regulations formally promulgated under the APA, federal agencies also frequently promulgate an enormous amount of forms, manuals, policy statements, letters, and rulings. These documents may be considered by a court as persuasive authority as to how a particular statute or regulation may be interpreted, but are not entitled to Chevron deference.
    I don't want to go too crazy here, but the agencies have pretty broad powers to take some extreme positions that taxpayers are then required to litigate to overturn, but I am not throwing the BATFE into that framework - I think there are too many Congress critters that want to keep the BATFE on a very short leash. I could use Sebelius as an example, and the HHS requirement that tobacco companies have their packaging dictated by HHS regulations. That regulatory over-reaching is being destroyed by the Courts as we speak. There are, however, many other examples in many different agencies, for instance, Jackson's EPA
    Hopyard, mlr1m and phreddy like this.

  12. #41
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,597
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    I have always been under the impression that only Congress can create laws. That agencies such as BATFE, OSHA or EPa can only issue rules. But Haven't the Courts said that those rulings have the effect of law? That they must be obeyed? I just assumed that Executive Orders worked the same way. That they are rules with the effect of law.

    Michael
    Agencies have rule making authority and the rules carry the effect of law. But there is a pecking order.
    There must be a LAW authorizing the Agency rule making; the rule must go through a complex process which
    with only a few exceptions includes a public comment period; the rule must be consistent with existing law and constitution.

    There are "K-Street" law firms and lobbyists who do nothing but comb the Federal Register every week to
    make sure their interests aren't being stamped on by one proposed rule or another. I don't know how NRA operates, however
    I'd be surprised if they don't have at least one employee on staff combing The Federal Register all the time.

    A Prez can't issue an EO to an Agency to make a rule not consistent with the authority Congress gave to the Agency and not consistent with all other laws and constitution. He can't for example simply order the nullification of a tax
    placed into law by Congress, nor can he create a new tax by his own word.

    Bottom line. A President isn't a dictator, and sure as heck isn't a law maker.

    Presidents have very very very very very limited roles in law making. So when you listen to all the campaign
    promises, then wonder why nothing happens, keep in mind that a President's major role in law making is
    to wield the Veto Pen. He can propose till the cows come home. If no one listens, he might as well be
    talking to a wall.

    As far as AWB, IMO, both candidates if left to their own instincts would propose and sign an AWB. There
    isn't a shred of difference between them on that issue notwithstanding what they may say during the campaign.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  13. #42
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    3,885
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    A Prez can't issue an EO to an Agency to make a rule not consistent with the authority Congress gave to the Agency and not consistent with all other laws and constitution. He can't for example simply order the nullification of a tax
    placed into law by Congress, nor can he create a new tax by his own word.

    Bottom line. A President isn't a dictator, and sure as heck isn't a law maker.

    Presidents have very very very very very limited roles in law making. So when you listen to all the campaign
    promises, then wonder why nothing happens, keep in mind that a President's major role in law making is
    to wield the Veto Pen. He can propose till the cows come home. If no one listens, he might as well be
    talking to a wall.

    As far as AWB, IMO, both candidates if left to their own instincts would propose and sign an AWB. There
    isn't a shred of difference between them on that issue notwithstanding what they may say during the campaign.
    Hop - conceptually you are right on. However, take for instance, the new BATFE regulation creating reporting obligations related to long gun sales in states that border Mexico. This is clearly outside the mandate Congress has given BATFE and it is not legal. That notwithstanding, BATFE, at the urging of the executive branch, has created such a regulation. Until Congress grows a pair and puts BATFE back in its box and chides the Pres, this practice will have the force of law.

    To the OP - If O is reelected, I don't see a rush to the AWB. If he is voted out - Katy bar the door. For a pres that has openly stated (and affirmed by actions) that he will go around Congress by Executive Order - I wonder how many EOs he can write between election day and inaguration day. That could take some time to undo.
    phreddy likes this.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  14. #43
    Member Array foxytwo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    492
    Quote Originally Posted by Smitty901 View Post
    Well if you listened he said hand guns also.
    Sounds to me like he clearly came out of the closet again on the subject.
    He will ban all fire arms.
    If you look at his voting record as a state senator and a US senator you will see that he will try to ban all firearms at his first opportunity. He never seen a gun ban bill that he did not like. As a state senator he also wanted a man to go to trial because he killed a man that broke into his home. If he wins the election he won't have to worry about getting elected again. He will work as hard to ban all guns as he did to pass obama care. It will be one of his top priorities.
    phreddy likes this.

  15. #44
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    The AWB passed the US house by a vote of 216-214. 76 Democrats voted against the AWB and 38 Republicans, lead by their minority leader, voted for the AWB.

    In 2004 the US senate voted to continue the AWB as a part of a larger bill that failed to pass the senate. It would would most likely have passed the US house in 2004. We were saved from a vote in the house when speaker Hastert refused to bring the AWB to the floor for debate.

    There is every chance an AWB would pass the current US senate: It would not pass the current US house unless a president of the same party as the house majority insisted on an AWB: If that were to happen all bets are off.
    phreddy likes this.

  16. #45
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,597
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    Hop - conceptually you are right on. However, take for instance, the new BATFE regulation creating reporting obligations related to long gun sales in states that border Mexico. This is clearly outside the mandate Congress has given BATFE and it is not legal. That notwithstanding, BATFE, at the urging of the executive branch, has created such a regulation. Until Congress grows a pair and puts BATFE back in its box and chides the Pres, this practice will have the force of law.

    To the OP - If O is reelected, I don't see a rush to the AWB. If he is voted out - Katy bar the door. For a pres that has openly stated (and affirmed by actions) that he will go around Congress by Executive Order - I wonder how many EOs he can write between election day and inaguration day. That could take some time to undo.
    Part in bold--- in which case, it not being legal, someone will have the gumption to get an injunction. My guess,
    if it weren't legal it wouldn't be there.

    There are difficult internal hurdles involved in rule making which include various legal reviews not only by the Agency, but
    often by other parts of government. OMB has to look at cost and other issues related to the "verkings" of the
    regulation in tandem with all else.

    You or I might not like a regulation, but if it went through the normative rule making process it is likely in conformity with
    existing authority, law, and constitution; and when not it will be rapidly enjoined.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

2013 assault weapons ban

,
2013 weapons ban
,
assault rifle band 2013
,
assault weapon ban timeline
,
assault weapons ban 2013
,
assault weapons ban timeline
,
assault weappon ban 2013
,

backpedaling on the new assault weapons ban

,
if assult weapon ban happens when will it take effect
,
soonest gun ban could go into effect
,
the president speech on the assault rifle band to take effect in january 2013
,

what happens if assault weapons are banned

Click on a term to search for related topics.