Gun laws under prospective presidential candidates

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Colvin

New member
So what would happen if we had another president? Since it's the primaries, candidates are trying to appeal to the extreme right- whoever gets the nomination will surely slide to the middle.

Paul seems the most likely to loosen gun restrictions. The others... not so sure. Your thoughts? And please don't use this to argue about Obama.
 
Well, the president does not make the laws- Congress does. And Obama has made no move to push the Congress to make them more or less restrictive. And neither did GWB. Considering we are in the worst depression since the 1930's, I don't think it matters what president we have, it's not a priority.
 
SwampYankee, I'm aware of that. Bu the president remains the president and still has considerable legislative power, even though Congress has more. There's also the Executive Order, though I doubt any of the candidates would use it in a gun related manner.

This thread isn't about Congress, however.
 
Strictly speaking the president has only veto power. He can ask for but cannot introduce any bill into either house of Congress.
 
Once again, it doesn't matter who is president. Obama has no interest so even if he wins another 4, nothing will change. If a republican wins, he's probably also not going to have an interest. Guns are like abortion, there is no middle ground. People love them or hate them so no matter what you do, you alienate half the voters. It's best not to do anything and hope the issue stays under the radar...

Perhaps you really should have just asked: What is each republican candidates stance on guns and gun rights?
 
The president has DIRECT control over the management, policies and practices at the BATFE. Or he can choose to de-fund them entirely. He also controls the DOJ. Congress allocates money, the Prez spends it more or less, except for major entitlement programs.

Would Dr. Paul spend less money than Congress gives him? Yeah. He sure as hell would. He gave back his entire salary as a congresscritter every single year, he pared his office budget to the bone (including fewer than normal staffers) and gave back a big part of his office budget to the general treasury every year.

We have never had a President wired quite that way in our entire history.
 
Paul might very well defund the ATFE(and most of the treasury department with it) and say the FBI has responsibility to investigate any related criminal activity.

President has TONS of power over it. Obama/executive departments has issued several anti-gun orders that have nibbled away at expression of the second amendment.
 
Seems more a civics lesson for the uniformed instead of politics so:

President:
- Executive leader of federal law enforcement and criminal prosecution. As such frequently suspends law (all of them do this) that he disagrees with. Issues executive orders that clarify law even when the order is unconstitutional.

- Veto/ signs legislation. Various forms of veto power.

- Appoints supreme court judges (as needed) whom can change or strike laws if deemed unconstitutional according to their personal beliefs as interpreted through the legal system.

- Proposes a budget. This budget has never passed congress "as is" to my knowledge.

- Interprets the budget as he sees fit once it is passed. Nearly always overspends everywhere. Defunds, or attempts to defund programs he does not like.

- Has huge input into legal US Code through the DOJ and various other ways.

So what would happen if we had another president?
Click to expand...

More of the same of what we have now. No electable person has anything different about "gun control" than the current leadership. No major legislation has passed. No major regulation tightening. Nothing except a little loosening has taken place in the last three years. It is a non-issue to most voters and because of that a non-issue to most pols.

The sky did not fall when the last pres was elected. It won't be all sunshine and milk and honey if someone else is elected.
 
A few people are saying it doesn't matter who's president. IMO I would want to vote one who is pro-firearms at least, wouldn't you? although he may not have direct power over law-making, it does make a big impression which side he's on..
 
Ron Paul is a strict Constitutionalist. And if it reads "shall not be infringed", that just about settles it.
Click to expand...
Actually, Paul was anything but supportive of McDonald v. Chicago. He's otherwise strong on the 2A, but I wasn't very happy about that.

As others have said, the President has little influence over the legislature. That's not to say he can't do anything (MTT TL's post is an excellent illustration of this), but if we're to advance gun rights, we need to pay more attention to the legislature than the executive branch.

And yes, that means getting people to the polls in local and midterm elections. That means people need to be taught to pay attention and make the right choices on all the other boxes on the ballot, not just the big red and blue ones at the very top.

We're going to have discussions on the potential effects of the upcoming election on the 2nd Amendment. As the field narrows and November looms closer, we'll have a lot of those. The trick is to keep from venturing into pure politics. It's a fine line, but I think we can keep it clear.
 
The issue is not what laws might a President pass, but who might they place on the SCOTUS and how will that individual interpret the Constitution. Many Second Amendment cases have been decided by very narrow majorities, so it does matter who they nominate. I believe the strategy of the anti-gun folks is to remain quite until they gain a majority on the Court and then they can get their way regardless of what the American people want.
 
Id like to point out Supreme Court appointments.

Im dead tired and about to go to bed, so forgive me if someone else mentioned it.

I'm generally relatively favorable of Obama. Dont love him, dont hate him. Agree with a handful of things, disagree with another handful, and wish he did alot more in a few areas.

With that being said, I am worried about his supreme court appointments, if he has the opportunity.
 
Ditto on SCOTUS nominations, not to mention other court appointments. That's probably the most important function (in terms of RKBA) of the Presidency.

In the next 4-8 years it is likely that the SCOTUS will have a couple seats vacated, as Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Ginsburg are all 75+ years old. 75-80 seems to be a common age for SCOTUS Justice retirement.

It is important to note; the President doesn't appoint Justices to the SCOTUS, they are nominated. SCOTUS nominees must be confirmed by the Senate. Without straying too far into partisan politics, obtaining a conservative majority in the Senate* is just as important as winning the Presidency.

* Pro-2ndA mindsets are more prevalent among conservative politicians vice liberal politicians. Therefore, the argument can be made that a conservative majority in the Senate is more favorable towards gun owners. I acknowledge that there are liberal politicians and individuals which are pro-2ndA, however they are the exception, not the rule.
 
Personally, I think it's more important to hear what the candidates have to say about the trade deficit but so far, nary a whisper.
 
There is the risk that such a thread turns into a political flame war. The battle between proponents of such in the past were disasters for TFL.

I see it happening and thus, we had a staff discussion and consensus was to
snip such in the bud.

Sorry but there are plenty of fora for such.

Glenn
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top