2012 Election and Rules for L&CR

Patriot, I agree, we need not speculate on things that could be. A lot of things, could be. Just as many won't or never will be.

As you may know, the 4-State rifle reporting requirement is under litigation (Item #54 in the 2A Cases thread). That may or may not go our way. However it may go, it will resolve that particular item. That fact that you and I (and the NSSF and NRA) may think it unlawful, there is actually a rebutable premise that the ATF does have that authority. We shall see.

Stevno, Judicial appointments (not just the SCOTUS, but district and circuit courts) is the single biggest thing, to my mind. Whatever else happens, these appointments are for life and if the trend continues (the trend of appointing younger judges), then we will be saddled with judges whose ideology will endanger the gains made., for years to come.
 
the thing that concerns me most as Obama will probably have a chance to nominate at least one if not two supreme court judges which are lifetime appointments. that scares me a lot
Click to expand...

Yes, ultimately this seems like the bigger concern to 2A freedoms. We all know that many recent decisions have been 5 to 4 and a minor shift in the court could have impacts long beyond our lifetimes.
 
One hope with respect to younger judges and life-time apointments, is the reality that as we age, we become more and more conservative in our beliefs. I know this generalization is just that, but I do hope that the current rulings on the 2A are given plenty of time before they are revisited. I also hope the current court sees fit to expand on them prior to current justices being replaced.

I would really like to see how the two new judges truely feel about the 2A and its individual rights before I write them off.
 
So if the house re-elects every two years, I have roughly two years to get as many of the toys I want before things may become risky.

No pressure eh? Naw I'm kidding, but seriously, I agree that we need to wait and see what happens. If we're lucky, the new judges of the SCOTUS will be more in favor of supporting the 2A. With Obama being the one who chooses who will be assigned for the task of replacing some of them though, the liklihood I feel may not be all that great.

It's too early to really say, I just hope that we all turn out to be worrying for nothing.
 
It is hard to see a massive change in the house in the next 2 year election cycle. Nor does the Senate seem likely have a filibuster proof majority in 2 years.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
It is hard to see a massive change in the house in the next 2 year election cycle. Nor does the Senate seem likely have a filibuster proof majority in 2 years.
Click to expand...

You beat me to it.

Plus, nothing happened from the pro-gun control side in the last four years. Gun control measures aren't really anywhere on the agenda for the foreseeable future either. The congress and President have their hands full with taxes, the economy and deficit.
 
Midterm elections are notoriously disastrous for second term presidents. Convention would dictate that the Dems would suffer significant loses. Of course, convention would dictate that Obama winning this election was nigh on impossible too, so...
 
It is hard to see a massive change in the house in the next 2 year election cycle.
Click to expand...
I don't know. Last night was pretty ugly for a bunch of 2010 freshmen.

However, many of the 2006 freshmen, despite party affiliation, have A ratings from the NRA and a good record on guns. Support for the 2nd Amendment doesn't split along party lines.

Back to the question of new Justices, they can be hard to predict. Take the case of Justice Souter. I doubt the folks pushing for his appointment really expected him to end up ruling the way he did on many things.
 
Okay, granting that Congress must enact legislation, but what is to stop the President from enacting an excutive order that bans the production and transfer of standard capacity magazines like President George H.W. Bush did with the import ban?
 
Good question, nothing I can think of. This current president has shown a remarkable lack of regard for our Constitution, an an equally remarkable adherence to his own founding principals and biases. I see dark times ahead on several fronts. The 2A front, the astronomical debt he continues to saddle us with, issues with our allies, issues with the very real nuclear threat from Iran and our only real mideast partner Israel, and a sharply divided citizenry. Divided to a degree we have not seen since the Civil War. The whole mess just makes me terribly sad. I literally feel exactly the same as I did when my father died 1-19-11. A formerly strong and vigorous man, a WWII and Korea vet who worked, made his way, raised 4 sons and raised them right. A good man all around, with some normal human frailties. Sunken with cancer, and dead at home leaving memories of what was. This feels like that.

On the firearms issue though, I do think he will take action. His base demands it, he has promised it, he has disdain for us, and no mistake about it. He will act. What it will be is up for debate. I think he will come after components and ammo, not so much the actual firearms. The exception I would not be surprised about would be the very evil and crime causing semi auto rifles that look scary. Armed free men are the enemy of his ilk, the antipathy they feel is visceral and should not be underestimated my friends. I do not think it is alarmist to say this, I think it would be intellectually dishonest to ignore it.
 
SPEMack618 said:
Okay, granting that Congress must enact legislation, but what is to stop the President from enacting an excutive order that bans the production and transfer of standard capacity magazines like President George H.W. Bush did with the import ban?
Click to expand...

You have to realize, there's a big difference between "What would stop him from...." and the actual implications of doing so.

What would stop me from suing you, right now, for slander and libel?

Absolutely nothing, that's what.

I just wouldn't get anywhere with it, because I have nothing to base it on. I could do it, but you'd be really angry and probably find a way to legitimately counter-sue me.

Right?

Certainly, the President COULD do all sorts of nasty things by Executive Order. Fortunately, Executive Orders are limited by the Constitutional powers actually designated to the Executive Branch.

In other words, he'd get sued.

Also, certain powers are likewise delegated to congress, such as control of interstate commerce. Congress, even when they philosophically agree with the President, guards their powers jealously. Very, VERY jealously.

Overstepping either of those bounds (probably both) by a significant margin could turn out very, very bad for the President.
 
I don't see anything (if anything happens) happening till after mid term elections. Think the dems are still hurting from the last mid term loss, they won't want to do anything drastic until then. If anything they'll want to have the reps stonewall everything the first two years to help them during mid term elections.
 
SPEMack618 said:
Okay, granting that Congress must enact legislation, but what is to stop the President from enacting an excutive order that bans the production and transfer of standard capacity magazines like President George H.W. Bush did with the import ban?
Click to expand...

This might be a good time to move back toward legal issues by hitting the reset button on what an executive order is. An executive order is a directive from the President to the administrative branch of the government providing directions on how to implement or execute existing laws. Executive orders can only act within the boundaries of existing laws.

So how did President Bush ban the importation of 'assault weapons?' The Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 925 already controlled the importation of weapons.

(d) The Attorney General shall authorize a firearm or ammunition to be imported or brought into the United States or any possession thereof if the firearm or ammunition -
(3) ... is generally recognized as particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes
Click to expand...

Congress enacted the Gun Control Act of 1968 but left it to the administrative branch to sort out the specific definition of the term "sporting purposes." Bush simply instructed the Secretary of the Treasury (law later changed to Attorney General) to clarify the term "sporting purposes" to exclude assault weapons.

There is no law that I am aware of that gives the federal government discretion over the domestic manufacture or ownership of magazines. Until such a law is enacted, the President cannot issue an executive order on that subject.
 
So, in essence, Mr. Pfleuger, you're saying that the CINC could do it, if he so chose, but that it would be like first girlfriend ugly if he did?

That makes perfect sense, but raises another question.

How did President H.W. Bush get buy with enacting the import ban?

Was it because the support for gun rights just wasn't there like it is today?
 
what is to stop the President from enacting an excutive order
Click to expand...

Yes, I have thought about this in the past, but it seems unlikely of course I may eat my words one day.

However, I wonder how likely it might be from a legal and political standpoint to see departments or agencies within the Federal Government implement additional restrictions. For instance the Department of Homeland Security restricting and/or charging additional fees related to ammo sales. What about the Department of Health and Human Services implement a Trauma Center fee on firearms and ammo sales? These are things that might simply fly under the radar for the average citizen and have little negative political impact.

So, I’m not sure if the above are legitimate hypothetical examples, but could it happen from a legal standpoint?
 
These are things that might simply fly under the radar for the average citizen and have little negative political impact.
Click to expand...
That's where those of us in the gun culture come in. Back in 2007, OSHA proposed Standard 1910.109, which would have lumped "small arms ammunition, small arms ammunition primers, [and] smokeless propellant" in with high explosives, causing all sorts of logistical nightmares. The NSSF and NRA got involved, Congressmen were contacted, and OSHA quickly backtracked, claiming that it was a misunderstanding.

That's how we keep the sneaky backdoor stuff from going through. There's always a way to apply pressure, we just have to stay informed and active.

gc70: thanks for a more concise explanation than I could muster.
 
That's how we keep the sneaky backdoor stuff from going through. There's always a way to apply pressure, we just have to stay informed and active.
Click to expand...

Yes, excellent point.

I suspect we need to be vigilant about reviewing the email updates from the NRA and contacting our representatives. Also, The Firing Line itself can serve as a good clearinghouse to assist us in differentiating between legitimate concerns and outlandish rumor.
 
gc70 said:
Congress enacted the Gun Control Act of 1968 but left it to the administrative branch to sort out the specific definition of the term "sporting purposes." Bush simply instructed the Secretary of the Treasury (law later changed to Attorney General) to clarify the term "sporting purposes" to exclude assault weapons.
Click to expand...

Thank you, gc70. I had no idea that the Import Ban was also interrlated with GCA '68.

And to go along with what Tom Servo and BarryLe have said, I love The Firing Line for the accurate, boots on the ground reporting I can read hear concerning laws and civil rights. It has helped end many a conniption fit around the Fraternity House over the "boys in blue berets."
 
I think I'm more concerned with the UN Arms Treaty. I confess that I haven't been able to digest most of the information that I've heard about it, but is this the end-run around the Constitution that they need?

Oh, and it looks like gas is going back up. :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top