Assault Weapon Ban? - Page 4

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 foxytwo If you look at his voting record as a state senator and a US senator you will see that he will ...

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 101
Like Tree79Likes

Thread: Assault Weapon Ban?

  1. #46
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,080
    Quote Originally Posted by foxytwo View Post
    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.
    It is difficult to respond to a post like this without getting even further into the political mire.

    NEITHER candidate is pro 2A; one has signed anti-gun owner legislation and the other hasn't. Like they
    say in the stock and bond market, past earnings are no guarantee of future earnings.
    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


  2. #47
    New Member Array Watcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    8
    A Republican Congress would never pass a small arms or assalt weapons ban bill and the Senate would fillibuster that bill from now till doomsday. I'm not worried about it. But that being said I still will not vote for Obama..

  3. #48
    Senior Member Array kerberos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    747
    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?
    To answer the OP's question directly...

    Before the ink is dry if that's how the specific language is worded.

    Usually there is time written in for compliance purposes.

    I'm in the "never gonna happen" camp... just not enough popular or congressional support at this time...

    I'm also in the "there are other means to exact controls without congressional approval" camp as well.



    Sidebar... for poops and giggles...

    Rock and Glock and WHEC724 like this.
    "Death is lighter than a feather, but Duty is heavier than a mountain" Robert Jordan
    USMC veteran
    Glock 19 Gen 4
    Si hoc legere scis, nimis eruditionis habes

  4. #49
    Member Array torgo1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    420
    Quote Originally Posted by foxytwo View Post
    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.
    So the last four years weren't, "his first opportunity"? The four years during which he neither signed nor proposed any gun control, got an F grade from the Brady Campaign, and lifted gun control that was put in place by Ronald Reagan?

    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.
    There is no evidence for this and lots of common sense against it. Like in 2008, Obama has avoided the issue like the plague on the campaign trail. Though he doesn't have to run again, he does have to deal with Congress and they will have an election during a final term. Also, he's a young man. He's not going to just abandon politics and public life when he's done. He's not going to go out of his way to push legislation that he knows will hurt the Democratic party and knee cap the next Democratic nominee.

  5. #50
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    4,005
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    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.
    Somebody will likely challenge it at some point. However, there is no magic force field around the pres that keeps him from doing as he pleases IF Congress or some other litigation does not stop him.
    phreddy and msgt/ret like 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.

  6. #51
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,080
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    Somebody will likely challenge it at some point. However, there is no magic force field around the pres that keeps him from doing as he pleases IF Congress or some other litigation does not stop him.
    Huh? Are you suggesting that a President does as he pleases with no checks and balances from the Congress and the
    Courts. Those are the "magic force field you seem to think is absent.

    If you want to worry about who and what might break the norms and breach the safety mechanisms
    built by the framers, you would do better to look to "Seven Days in May" than to a President.
    Sig 210 likes this.
    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

  7. #52
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by Watcher View Post
    A Republican Congress would never pass a small arms or assalt weapons ban bill and the Senate would fillibuster that bill from now till doomsday. I'm not worried about it. But that being said I still will not vote for Obama..
    Don't kid yourself. If they thought they could remain in power they would do it in a heartbeat. They vote to protect their spot at the public trough, not your rights and freedom.

    Michael

  8. #53
    VIP Member Array suntzu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    TX/NH
    Posts
    5,996
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Huh? Are you suggesting that a President does as he pleases with no checks and balances from the Congress and the
    Courts. Those are the "magic force field you seem to think is absent.

    If you want to worry about who and what might break the norms and breach the safety mechanisms
    built by the framers, you would do better to look to "Seven Days in May" than to a President.
    Great movie but equally implausible (IMO) that the military would overthrow a sitting president. In the movie the President is not even accused of doing anythingh shady or illegal. Just a major point in difference over what constitutes "defending" our country.

    BTW: I assume yo mean the original movie....the remake sucked (like all remakes)

    Anyway...Obama IMO will not actively seek gun legislation but if one was put before him that did not drasticlly restricy rights of gun owners I think he would sign it. As mentioned earlier, he is young and he is not going to forfeit his ability to speak for the Democratic party like Clinton does by doing some drastic.
    Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
    And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”

    Isaiah 6:8

  9. #54
    Distinguished Member Array phreddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Spartanburg, SC
    Posts
    1,971
    Quote Originally Posted by torgo1968 View Post

    There is no evidence for this and lots of common sense against it. Like in 2008, Obama has avoided the issue like the plague on the campaign trail. Though he doesn't have to run again, he does have to deal with Congress and they will have an election during a final term. Also, he's a young man. He's not going to just abandon politics and public life when he's done. He's not going to go out of his way to push legislation that he knows will hurt the Democratic party and knee cap the next Democratic nominee.

    He did this exact thing with his medical care act.

    The only thing I will trust to a politician is their ambition. As long as I have some control over their furture (by voting), I have some control over what they do. A lame duck president is not something I desire now. I would rather have someone who needs my approval (vote) in four years. There are no more national political office that Obama can run for after president. His next job, either in 2013 or in four years, will be an appointment.

  10. #55
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    4,005
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Huh? Are you suggesting that a President does as he pleases with no checks amnd balances from the Congress and the Courts. Those are the "magic force field you seem to think is absent.
    Hop - I have less faith in the system than you do. I also appear to have a lower expectation of people. Yes, I do believe this pres feels, with some justification, he can act unilaterally with impunity. He has stated his intent to so do. He has done so and Congress has yet to demand he stop and undo the damage such actions have done. The courts cannot jump in until there is an action brought, either by Congress or another affronted party.
    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.

  11. #56
    Distinguished Member Array Hodad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Roswell, GA
    Posts
    1,666
    I have always considered "Assault Weapons" those that are capable of being operated in a fully automatic mode. This obviously applies more to
    long guns than pistols.

    I know this may not be popular on this forum, but given that our country is not Iraq, Syria or Egypt, I have no problem with significant
    restrictions on fully automatic weapons.

    The danger,of course, is creating that dreaded "slippery slope" that anti-gun lawyers and politicians will use to promote their agenda.
    "Life is tough but it's really tough if you are stupid"

  12. #57
    Senior Member Array kerberos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by Hodad View Post
    I have always considered "Assault Weapons" those that are capable of being operated in a fully automatic mode. This obviously applies more to
    long guns than pistols.

    I know this may not be popular on this forum, but given that our country is not Iraq, Syria or Egypt, I have no problem with significant
    restrictions on fully automatic weapons.


    The danger,of course, is creating that dreaded "slippery slope" that anti-gun lawyers and politicians will use to promote their agenda.
    That's a good thing considering they already exist...

    "Death is lighter than a feather, but Duty is heavier than a mountain" Robert Jordan
    USMC veteran
    Glock 19 Gen 4
    Si hoc legere scis, nimis eruditionis habes

  13. #58
    VIP Member
    Array msgt/ret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    7,732
    Quote Originally Posted by Hodad View Post
    I have always considered "Assault Weapons" those that are capable of being operated in a fully automatic mode. This obviously applies more to
    long guns than pistols.

    I know this may not be popular on this forum, but given that our country is not Iraq, Syria or Egypt, I have no problem with significant
    restrictions on fully automatic weapons.
    The danger,of course, is creating that dreaded "slippery slope" that anti-gun lawyers and politicians will use to promote their agenda.
    Already heavily regulated. National Firearms Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk.
    "Don't forget, incoming fire has the right of way."

  14. #59
    Senior Member Array Phillep Harding's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    821
    Quote Originally Posted by Hodad View Post
    I know this may not be popular on this forum, but given that our country is not Iraq, Syria or Egypt, I have no problem with significant restrictions on fully automatic weapons.
    Are you under the impression that they do not already have significant restrictions? I see msg/ret covered the NFA. Additional restrictions were added in 1986, possibly in violation of House and Senate rules. The leadership was... selectively lax, IMO.

    As for the '94 "Crime Bill", a strong argument could be made that it's passage was illegal. It failed the first time through, then, Congress was called back into session after the conservatives had gone home for the night, and the bill was passed. Again, GOP leadership lacked the will to do anything about it.

    Prior to 1968, machine gun regulations were so laxly enforced that they might as well not have existed. The country somehow survived.

  15. #60
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,080
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    Hop - I have less faith in the system than you do. I also appear to have a lower expectation of people. Yes, I do believe this pres feels, with some justification, he can act unilaterally with impunity. He has stated his intent to so do. He has done so and Congress has yet to demand he stop and undo the damage such actions have done. The courts cannot jump in until there is an action brought, either by Congress or another affronted party.
    Apparently so. It also seems we get our news from different sources. I can think of no improper action taken by
    this Prez which could conceivably be construed as acting unilaterally (which in context of our discussion would be illegally)
    and with impunity. I'm sure The House would have pounced with an impeachment had he done so.

    You are correct that courts can't do anything till an action is filed, but as I mentioned elsewhere, there are literally armies
    of K Street lawyers, Corporate Lawyers, NGO lawyers, all waiting to pounce at the slightest affront to their special interest.
    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 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Sponsored 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 2013,what weapons will be banned
,
assault weapons ban timeline
,
assault weappon ban 2013
,

backpedaling on the new assault weapons ban

,
soonest assault weapons ban
,
soonest gun ban could go into effect
,

what happens if assault weapons are banned

Click on a term to search for related topics.