2012 Election and Rules for L&CR

I may be wrong about this, but it seems that Bush exploited something of a loop hole, or gap, in the law and Constitution when he issued an executive order directed at firearms imported from foreign nations.
Click to expand...
Actually, he just exploited the "sporting purpose" clause in 18 U.S.C. 925(d)(3). The ATF had made two prior rulings (94-1 & 94-2) in 1984 that the Striker-12 and Street Sweeper shotguns were not eligible for import because they were not “particularly suitable for sporting purposes.” The same study leading to that was the one that ruled police competition and practical shooting competitions didn't count.

Having seen those rulings withstand scrutiny and challenge (which was faint at best), they pressured Bush to apply the same standard to "assault rifles." At the time, the idea of banning the importation of high-capacity mags had also been bandied around, but was rejected.

In truth, there was never an EO. Bush informally directed the ATF to enforce the new interpretation.
 
Last edited:
^ I completely agree, but we keep getting told that it does not matter who is president and that nothing, absolutely nothing, bad would ever happen post this November 2012 election. We shall see, but I'm stupid and think some bad things will happen. Hope I'm wrong.
 
My take is the Obama administration will... make the cost prohibitive to the consumer instead of a more direct approach of bans or confiscation.
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly. At the risk of planting ideas in the minds of the opposition, I have a hunch that future AWB-type legislation may take the form of taxes on "evil" features rather than an outright ban. Reasons:
  • In the post-Heller legal environment, the chances of surviving a court challenge are better for a taxation scheme modeled on the NFA, which is pretty much settled law, than for a Clinton AWB-style outright ban on commonly possessed items.
  • Memories of the rampant profiteering on "pre-ban" items during the original AWB will trigger an epic buying frenzy before a theoretical "AWB II" goes into effect. This will result in a short-term increase in the number of banned items in circulation. OTOH let's say that a $5 tax will be imposed on so-called "hi-cap" magazines. There would be limited incentive for people to panic-buy if the mags will remain available, just at a slightly higher price.
  • Numerous conservative state legislatures have recently imposed "sin taxes" on items like cigarettes to close budget deficits. A similar mild taxation scheme could siphon off enough left-leaning but fiscally conservative moderates to get the measure through the House.
  • Even if the measure is virtually worthless as a ban and/or a revenue-raising measure, it could be sold to the far left of the President's party as a mere first step, as with the PPACA.
Vigilance is the key.
 
I think part of the cause for my concern is that I have relatives who currently live, or lived in states at one time, that are very hostile towards gun owners. I have witnessed, second hand, how overzealous anti-gun politicians have enacted laws that seem contrary to our Constitution at the state and local level. It seems that the politicians who are most vociferous in their hostility towards firearms, like Senator Charles Schumer of New York, are almost unbeatable in their districts. I hope that I'm wrong, but sometimes it seems that election results, like occurred last Tuesday, embolden politicians like Schumer, to resurrect and lead the fight against firearms owners. We, firearms owners, need to wait and see what happens, but we must be vigilant and ready to act as a group in lobbying efforts with our congressmen and senators through phone calls and letters and spreading the word to those who may not pay attention to current events. Whether you own firearms for hunting, sport, or self-defense. we must stay and work together to protect our rights and freedoms.
 
Last edited:
But the fact is Obama is now unencumbered, by having to be re-elected. Don't be surprised if we start hearing about "common sense & reasonable" gun control in the near future. Obama sincerely believes that crime can be reduced by making the public's access to firearms more difficult and expensive
Click to expand...
(Emphasis mine)..
I agree 100% - that's Mr. Obama's preferred method of control - price (or tax or fine) it into nonexistance.

What's sad, is he's getting exactly his way in that regard without even having to lift a finger.
 
My take is the Obama administration will... make the cost prohibitive to the consumer instead of a more direct approach of bans or confiscation
Click to expand...

If he does try any attempt at gun control, it will be through means such as taxation or fees.
 
If politicians endorsed by our beloved NRA do unto us vis-a-vi Bush and his ban, does this not severely weaken the endorsement? Why wasn't the Clinton ban reversed by Bush? In my view the NRA uses political rhetoric as fact, in a money raising scheme, and is just another business in the growth industry of politics.
 
In my view the NRA uses political rhetoric as fact, in a money raising scheme, and is just another business in the growth industry of politics.
Click to expand...

While I agree that the NRA does indeed engage in a certain amount of hyperbole in some of their statements I also think they do a pretty good job of keep us informed. As an average citizen I have neither the access nor the resources to follow every anti-2A effort on a national level. I receive several updates each week many focused on my specific State and I find these quite helpful.

As for using this information for fundraising I wonder what else they would use. In other words if there were no threat to our freedom what conceivable reason would anyone have for supporting them? Yes, maybe gun safety, but really they are an advocacy group and that is why they publicize those efforts.
 
If politicians endorsed by our beloved NRA do unto us vis-a-vi Bush and his ban, does this not severely weaken the endorsement?
Click to expand...
Politicians break promises. It's practically part of the job description. At the time of the endorsement, Bush looked to be a supporter of the RKBA. It was only after the Stockton shooting that Bennett pushed him into accepting the idea of an import ban.

Another example would be Kristen Gilliabrand, who appeared to be our friend until she landed in office.

Why wasn't the Clinton ban reversed by Bush?
Click to expand...
Because the President can't repeal an act of congress by fiat. This takes us right back to why executive orders need to be circumscribed.
 
Tom: "In truth, there was never an EO. Bush informally directed the ATF to enforce the new interpretation."

I watched Treasury Secretary (? Maybe he was atf. long ago) announce that street sweeper was declared an "explosive device." I was disgusted.
 
Here is a Fact - No Surprise

"US guns sales soar after Barack Obama's re-election"
Article from the 11-11-2012 Telegraph UK
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...les-soar-after-Barack-Obamas-re-election.html
No surprise and it will stay this way for quite a while. There must be a lot of stupid or smart people out there. I do know that I would rather have a safe full of firearms than paper dollar bills as long as the Fed is printing $$$ out of thin air and buying bonds with money printed out of thin air. As the owner of Survival Blog pointed out for 11-13-2012 blog:
"Consider: The used Macintosh II computer that I bought for $875 in 1990 is now worth perhaps $5 in scrap metal value, but the used stainless steel Colt Gold Cup .45 pistol that I bought for $400 in 1990 is now worth around $1,100."
 
Given the current climate of things, how long do you suspect the "panic" is going to last? In 2008 as I understand it, there was quite a "doomsday" attitude about how the world was coming to an end and Obama would be the greatest disaster to have ever of hit America and the law abiding gun owners of this country (Exaggerations of course).

Someone in a thread I had previously created said perhaps a year or so?

I know my LGS is making an absolute killing right now in terms of sales. I went down there about a week ago to check out a C75 compact I've been eyeing for the past few months only to find out that they had completely sold out of them within the past few days! :eek:

Hopefully things stableize soon, it's going to be a major pain or so it seems to get anything firearms related if this keeps up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Good grief, I hate politics.

Many others have stated this already, and I want to repeat it. There are way more important things on the plate of our elected officials than gun control at this point. I don't mean to make light of our constitutional RKBA, as it is very important to me, but I am actually more worried about our countries economic future than anything.

With this being said, if any of the czars came up with a back door way to make purchasing firearms or ammunition more inconvenient I don't doubt that our president would sign off on it. As others have said, we must remain vigilant. I do think supreme court appointments are an important issue and we shouldn't make light of this. You never can tell how an SCOTUS justice will vote, but Sotomayor has certainly been pretty predictable thus far. The damage is limited in that the legislative branch of government is split between two parties. Checks and balances (or partisan bickering) at it's finest.

Really, my biggest concern is whether or not the price of firearms skyrockets or not. In addition, I would really love for ammo and components to not be as scarce as they were in late '08 and most of '09. That would be nice. It's really not that real. There's no need to hoard. Not a bad idea to keep a decent supply on hand, but you don't need a lifetime supply of practice ammo on hand.
 
Wake Up America! The President does not make laws, change laws nor does the President, Executive Branch, change the Constitution of the USA.

Congress does if it passes the judgement of the Judicial Branch of our Government (the Supreme Court).

Stop trying to pump this crap if you are totally ignorant and never made it past the 6th grade in Civics. Maybe, they no longer teach it. :mad:

There is no reason any of us should fear our rights as Citizens will be affected by a Presidential Election.

The fear is brought about by those who want to profit from it.

Know your Congress person and don't automactically vote them in based upon their seniority.
 
Thank you, lamarw. All lot of folks around here could stand to learn how how our government works, and what powers the branches of government do/don't have.
 
Know your Congress person and don't automactically vote them in based upon their seniority.
Click to expand...

That might be the best post in this thread. Every time I get into a debate over whatever president is in office I tell people that it would be better to change the 535 people in congress than to worry about the one in the White House.

I also read a report a few months ago that said around 75 percent of the people think congress is doing a bad job. It went on to say that around 52 percent of those people would vote for their congress person again. That makes it hard to change much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top