Obama: AK-47s belong on battlefield, not streets

Status
Not open for further replies.
RaySendero asked:
Isn't an AK-47 select fire and such already requires a class 3 firearm license?
Click to expand...


chuckee: To get a real AK 47 you need a class 3 license and the selector switch has 3 positions where the look alikes they sell have 2 positions but how many people in the media and the W.H really understand.
Click to expand...


Thx for confirming that chuckee.

That's the very point I'm going to make in some personal discussions about these new gun control laws - They don't even know what they’re talking about!
 
Another bill that will go nowhere but let's the proposers posture a bit.
Click to expand...
What a ridiculous piece of legislation to even introduce. What I do like is reading the comments ... I think it gives a fair understanding of where the people stand and the comments are overwhelmingly negative towards any gun control. What I also found interestimng is that when McCarthy was questioned on some of the items in some anti gun legislation she tried to dodge the question and then eventually had to fess up that she didn't even know what some of the items in the legislation were even though she was endorsing controls on them. Nice work there!
 
To get a real AK 47 you need a class 3 license
Click to expand...
The "class 3" is a type of firearms dealer's license. If an "average joe" wanted an AK47, they would need a tax stamp from the ATF, and a a lot of money to buy one of the legally registered pre-86 AK47s.
 
The "class 3" is a type of firearms dealer's license.
Click to expand...
If you want to get really technical, the dealer needs a Type 1 or Type 2 FFL, and he needs to pay a Class 3 SOT. A full-auto rifle is a Title 2 weapon, and the purchaser has to send a tax in with a Form 4.

Also, the weapons available for civilian purchase aren't really AK-47's. They're sporter versions of the AKM. The AK-47 had a milled receiver instead of stamped sheet metal.

Do I expect a politician to know that, or to care, when all he's looking for is a convenient soundbyte to appease his base? Nope. The general public just knows "AK-47."
 
My question to you is this: Can you say with absolute certainty that waiting periods do no good?
Click to expand...

I cannot ..... but I don't think they will deter a determined nut. I will defer to Benjamin Franklin on this: "Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase temporary security will have neither."

When in doubt, err on the side of Liberty.

A waiting period might provide a bit of (likely temporary) security, but is will most surely erode Liberty.

There is a natural tendency among today's "legislators" to legislate.... as if piling on just. one. more. Law. will stop the inherently lawless ....... to quote one local "Progressive" lawmaker, "Do you suggest we do Nothing!?!?!..... I really don't care what he does, so long as it does not affect me and mine.
 
Tom Servo said:

Do I expect a politician to know that, or to care, when all he's looking for is a convenient soundbyte to appease his base? Nope. The general public just knows "AK-47."
Click to expand...

I'll go a bit further and say that many do know the difference, but admitting that wouldn't suit their political agenda.
 
pnac said:
I'll go a bit further and say that many do know the difference, but admitting that wouldn't suit their political agenda.
Click to expand...

And you'd be right. Consider this fun memo from the Violence Policy Center:

Although handguns claim more than 20,000 lives a year, the issue of handgun restriction consistently remains a non-issue with the vast majority of legislators, the press, and public (...) handgun restriction is simply not viewed as a priority.

Assault weapons, just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms, are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons (anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun) can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.
Click to expand...

Those guys used to have a great deal of sway in political circles.
 
What kills me is the assumption that the semi auto "Assault Weapons" which are mechanically no different than any other semi-auto are somehow more deadly. For the most part other than molding and places to hang things off of they are no different than a traditional semi-auto sporting rifle...

Im also amused (in a horrible way) that the general public seems to buy the idea that these "Assault Weapons" are "Heavy Weapons" or somehow endowed with enormous amounts of power.. Yet 2.23, 5.56, is not by any measure a particularly powerful round compared to many other offerings...

Molding the plastic to look whatever and apparently it becomes a death laser..:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Without getting into party politics, it is not uncommon for office holders to exercise discretion while reelection is a potential concern.

It is also not uncommon for lame ducks to suddenly embrace positions they could not embrace when reelection was a concern.

IE a first term's caution may be thrown to the winds in a second (and last allowed) term.
 
Only one of the two major parties has an AWB as one of their stated goals. The candidate that actually signed a state-wide AWB belongs to the other major party.

As a matter of law, who we elect to congress would play a bigger part in an AWB becoming law or not, IMO. Who we elect as President helps determine who gets nominated for any empty SCOTUS seats.

As to the original comment by the current President, well, kind of. Mr. Kalashnikov did design them for the battlefield...specifically the Russian steppe. Now, whether that is the ONLY place they should legally be, that's different!

Besides, AK-47s shouldn't be on our streets. Somebody might run them over and ruin them! :rolleyes:
 
raimius, SCOTUS appointments are not the only way the Executive can attack firearm ownership or carry.

Executive orders and ATF and Justice rules and policies can also be implemented or changed.
 
I am not a constitutional lawyer so someone educate me. Could in theory President Obama direct the ATF/JD via an EO to ban the manufacturer/import/sale of "assault weapons"? Could he use an EO to order the confiscation of all "Assault weapons"?
I took some basic govt classes in college but EO's were not brought up much. The extent to where the power of EO's end is a bit murky and honestly kind of alarming.
 
Patriot86, note the recent furor (pre F&F) about ATF attempting to require FFL reporting of multiple long gun sales. Since that happened, F&F broke; Congress specifically denied funding to ATF to enforce that directive. Last I heard, there was still an effort to enforce this in the four states bordering Mexico.

Then, ATF was going to try a new ban on shotgun importations, with a "sporting purposes" review last year.

On a non-gun note, an Executive Order has re-prioritized immigration enforcement so that a wide swath of illegal aliens will not be deported, for now.

EO's can have a big impact, sometimes permanently, but sometimes only until Congress or SCOTUS take countermeasures.
 
EO's can have a big impact, sometimes permanently, but sometimes only until Congress or SCOTUS take countermeasures.
Click to expand...
Yes, but they're meant to clarify or further enforcment of existing laws, not make new ones. The Supreme Court has taken a dim view of using them too widely in the past.
 
^ We have a few million new "residents" who would disagree with you. For sure EOs could be used on importation of firearms/ammunition and the executive branch deported a few firearms to Mexico not too long ago.
 
Besides, AK-47s shouldn't be on our streets. Somebody might run them over and ruin them!
Click to expand...

They are AK-47s... they can be ran over and be just fine :D


On the EO notion. I understand the premise of it, in that it was supposed to be used as a way for Congress not to be flooded with legislation. The stuff that wasn't "important" enough for Congressional approval was given to the Executive to pass on their own.

Or that's how I was taught it and understand it. But I think that the EO power has spiraled out of control with the power that it grants the Executive Branch. You mean one person can give an EO and instantly enforce something as large as the country's immigration policy without Congressional approval? That's insane. I think it would be a much different story if an EO was put out to confiscate "assault weapons" in that they would have a huge 2nd amend lawsuit but I can see an EO banning importation as a possibility.
 
Last edited:
I understand the premise of it, in that it was supposed to be used as a way for Congress not to be flooded with legislation.
Click to expand...
It wasn't supposed to give the Executive branch the ability to legislate. EO's have been vastly abused by the last few Presidents, but the public has largely failed to notice or raise a fuss about it.

For example, the 1989 import ban met with a collective "meh" by most gun owners, and it was ignored by the general public. Things are different today. There's a greater mistrust of government, and there's a greater awareness of the 2nd Amendment.

Pulling something like that in 2012 would very likely result in a court challenge on the constitutionality of the ban. It could also give the Supreme Court a chance to clamp down on just what can and cannot be done with EO's.
 
The problem is if we lose one of those 5 votes we have been relying on to WIN these very important 2A cases in the next 4 years. The SCOTUS is scary close to shifting towards 5-4 votes AGAINST things like Concealed Carry and other firearms issues; so who is to say if EO's are abused to enact defacto AWB's that the SCOTUS would not back the administration in just a few short years.

Assuming we have a divided congress and white house after November and during the next 4 years; if you have a Senate controlled by people who are for an AWB and the house by those against it no Legislation will ever works its way through to go around the EO.


That is the only way I could see an AWB being passed/forced anytime soon; even with one party or the other having a slight majority voting for an AWB would be politicial suicide for many "moderate" candidates in both parties.


I cannot stress how important the November federal elections are going to be for gun owners and how potentially detrimental it can be as well. 1 vote in the SCOTUS and a President who is not afraid to use EO's to enact "common sense" gun control can spell decades of disaster for gun owners. I am not going to get into who is for what or against what but all of us here in the states need to make sure as gun owners we are voting for and electing people willing to protect our 2A rights.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top