Obama Administration Finally Admits Desire to Reinstitute Assault Weapon Ban

"Connelly asks if there's a penalty for straw purchasing."

Gerry Connelly is my congressman.

He's also been a friend of mine for quite a few years, and when he was on the Fairfax County Board he appointed me to several county commissions.

Over the years I've had a number of what I thought were good discussions with him regarding firearms. I and a good gun-rights friend and neighbor who worked as one of his aides when he was with the county thought that we had made a lot of headway with Gerry regarding personal liberties, firearms, and the like.

The second he got to Congress he pretty much forgot everything we taught him.

I consider it to be one of my great failings in life.
 
First off, the administration didn't admit to anything. A member of the administration did.

Second, we can discuss the issues surrounding a reinstated AWB, but we don't veer off into purely political tangents. Who pays their fair share of taxes, who hasn't provided a birth certificate, "leftists," and ZOG are not acceptable topics for discussion. We're not even at page 2 yet, and I'm already deleting posts. That doesn't bode well for this thread.
 
Diane Feinstein once remarked that if she could have gotten the votes, she would have pushed the legislation, and Mr. and Mrs. America would have had to turn them all in. She was referring to assault weapons. Now, like then, they don't have the votes in congress. Of course, that could always change. However, as Howard Dean realized, gun control has not been a winning platform for the democrats at the national level. With crime rates continuing to decline, gun control is probably not going to become a winning issue for the democrat party. Obama may try to push the issue via any EO he thinks he can get away with. He won't do anything in 2012 which could jeopardize his re election chances. If he gets re elected and has an opportunity to put three justices on the US Supreme Court, that will present a big danger.
 
Obama may try to push the issue via any EO he thinks he can get away with.
Click to expand...
The exact limitations on what one can due via Executive Order haven't been hashed out, but trying to flaunt a Supreme Court ruling and institute policies that aren't supported by the legislature would trigger intensive backlash from those two branches. Heck, it might be fun to see.

Would he try it? From what I've seen, I wouldn't rule it out. I'd like to say that an actual legislative attempt to pass gun control would find little support in the current Congress, but looking at the vote tally for the original VCCLEA makes me wonder.

Remember that Clinton's second term looked grim. The other guys had control of Congress, and they weren't going to vote for gun control. No way, no how. Or, um, maybe. The lines on that vote were pretty blurry.

Of course, Clinton was better at reaching across the aisle to his opposition, we had a different balance on the Supreme Court, and cultural attitudes were different, but that pendulum can swing back in time.
 
USAF, I've just updated the anti-gun quotes page with a few gems from Obama and this one from Holder. It has that old quote from Feinstein, and may others.

In particular, Obama is on the same page, remarking in the past about his strong support for the AWB. Obama last year remarked in a meeting with the Bradys that he is working "under the radar" on anti-gun stuff.

http://thefiringline.com/library/quotes/antifreedom.xml
 
The exact limitations on what one can due via Executive Order haven't been hashed out, but trying to flaunt a Supreme Court ruling and institute policies that aren't supported by the legislature would trigger intensive backlash from those two branches.
Click to expand...

That seems to be how government works in the last decade or so. Issue a EO and hope it stands up in court and no one gets mad enough in the legislature to stop it.
 
Tom Servo:
The exact limitations on what one can due via Executive Order haven't been hashed out, but trying to flaunt a Supreme Court ruling and institute policies that aren't supported by the legislature would trigger intensive backlash from those two branches. Heck, it might be fun to see.
Click to expand...

I agree, which is why it is so important to think about whom he would appoint to the Supreme Court. He will likely have at least two appointments in a second term, and possibly three. I believe Obama to be a patient politician when he needs to be. If he were to be elected to a second term, he may wait until he's able to appoint justices who are not so supportive of the Second Amendment, then go for EO's which tighten gun control laws. If the democrats keep the Senate and retake the House in 2012, along with an Obama win, that would present an even more dangerous situation for gun rights advocates. I think it will be hard for democrats to retake the house. I'm hoping they don't. We need conservatives to get out and vote, regardless of whether they like the GOP nominee or not. We need to have more pro gun rights people in congress, especially if Obama wins a second term.
 
No Second Term

Another term for Obama would be disastrous for this country, and not only for firearms rights. The administration has been careful to avoid most overt action in this area so far, except for the BATFE letter in the SW mandating reporting multiple long gun sales, and the current import ban on hundreds of thousands of M1As and M1 Carbines from South Korea. Not a gun ban, just an import ban. But who knows what he might undertake once freed from the worry about another election?

It would be interesting to outline the SCOTUS ages and likely retirements, with their "political" leanings. So far, BOs appointments of liberal judges were replacing previously liberal judges, and had less than catastrophic results for gun rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top