Obama's Anti-Gun Budget Bill

K

KyJim

New member
Obama's proposed budget bill contains a number of anti-gun provisions buried within in it. One provision would allow money to be spent on further "gun walking" by the ATF. That's being discussed in the Project Gunrunner monster thread.

However, there were several other provisions Obama's budget that are anti-gun. It would allow scrapping of surplus M1 Garands presently sold through CMP, melt down surplus military brass used by reloaders, allow funds to be spent on centralizing firearms registration records after the current budget year, allow the release of firearms tracing data after the current budget year, would allow the govt. to ban re-importation of guns and ammo originally manufactured in the U.S.

Member gc70 has posted links to certain sections in his post here: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4964321&postcount=2022

The NRA has a story about it. Their take:
No one—not even Obama or his closest allies—believe this budget will be passed, and it may not even be brought up for a vote.
Click to expand...
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/articles/2012/on-the-second-amendment,-obama-budget-tells-all.aspx

Maybe it's just pandering to the left in an election year, but I have absolutely no doubt he is in favor of every one of these provisions and more if Congress would allow it.
 
Moved from the Project Gunrunner thread.
----------------------------------------

The gunwalking prohibition in Section 219 is proposed for deletion.

Section 8017 which prohibits scrapping surplus military firearms and brass is also proposed for deletion.

"Brackets enclose material that is proposed for deletion" - such as Sections 219 and 8017.

-------

There are additional anti-gun provisions in the 2013 budget that I have not seen discussed elsewhere.

Section 520. (a) - eliminates the export licensing exemption for selling $500 or less of "components, parts, accessories or attachments for firearms" to Canada.

Section 521. - eliminates the prohibition against denying an import permit for "United States origin "curios or relics'' firearms, parts, or ammunition."

The section dealing with BATFE Salaries and Expenses has some very sneaky changes in wording to change permanent bans to bans that only apply in the 2013 budget year.
  • The ban on funds for centralizing FFL records changes from "herein or hereafter" (permanent) to "herein" (only the 2013 budget year).
  • The language that makes the ban on releasing firearms tracing data permanent ("during the current fiscal year and in each fiscal year thereafter") is also eliminated.

-------

jimpeel said:
I don't understand. Where does it say in Sec. 8017 that M-1s etc. will be destroyed?
Click to expand...

The current language in Sec. 8017 prohibits military firearms and brass from being destroyed.

The brackets around Sec. 8017 in the budget mean that Obama is proposing to entirely delete Sec. 8017 so that there would no longer be any restrictions on destroying military firearms or brass.
 
Let me say right off the bat - If we are going to discuss the Fast & Furious portion of this bill, then take it to the ATF F&F thread.

The rest of the bills "problems" are up for discussion.
 
These folks can't be restrained by a budget, it feels pretty safe even with the firearms measures proposed.
Maybe another 97 to 0 vote is in the works.
 
The anti-gun provisions in the 2013 budget may be Obama's way of pandering to the left, but is there any doubt that those provisions would be rammed through if there was a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress after the November elections?
Click to expand...
We're getting an eensy bit close to straight politics, but as a matter of strategy, it's worth discussing. Simply put, I expect few if any seats to pass to legislators sympathetic to gun control in the next election. I think we're good on that for now.

My concern is for representatives who don't read the small print, or who vote for a bill with these provisions because it gets them something they want for their constituents. This is where acting locally and keeping in touch with our legislators becomes vital.
 
Obama, I think, in any way imaginable, panders to the anti gun/the anti gun rights set, be it left, right or center.
 
Simply put, I expect few if any seats to pass to legislators sympathetic to gun control in the next election. I think we're good on that for now.
Click to expand...

I believe you are correct the legislator is probably not the biggest threat to gun rights. In my opinion the biggest threat to gun rights is the Judicial Brach with the SCOTUS being narrowly divided on Second Amendment issues. I fear the anti-gun crowd is not pushing legislature because they plan to use the court to accomplish what the Congress never will and that is increased firearms restrictions.

The current President may very well end up appointing new Justices before the end of this year. Also the next President, be it the current guy or someone else, will most certainly be appointing new Justices. This seems to fall through the cracks for a lot of folks, but the Supreme Court can do in one day what the legislature could never do. It is very important to assure Jurist are appointed who will protect our freedoms not destroy them.
 
This seems to fall through the cracks for a lot of folks, but the Supreme Court can do in one day what the legislature could never do.
Click to expand...
Of course, Article II stipulates that Justices are appointed by the President, but "by and with the consent of the Senate."

Again, vote, people.
 
Again, vote, people
Click to expand...


Bingo.

Just because your congress critter claims to represent all that is good, wholesome, moral and right does not make it so. Quite often your Second Amendment rights come in last dead behind political correctness, horse trading and the desires of monied lobbys.

Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed by a vote of 68-31. 25 percent of opposition party members voted to confirm the nomination of Sotomayor. That number included Lindsay Graham.

Those opposition members voting to confirm Sotomayor:

L. Alexander, C. Bond, S. Collins, L. Graham, J. Gregg, M. Martinez, R. Lugar, O. Snowe, and G. Voinovich.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/07/31/us/politics/0731-sotomayor-vote.html
 
Again, vote, people.
Click to expand...

Yeah vote, look where it got this time around. Way too many folks who vote party instead of who would do the country good regardless of party. Charisma and smooth talking got the current president elected not policy
 
The make-up of the SCOTUS was not intended to be, and should not be, a party-line issue.

The circus that started (at least in my memory) with the Bork nomination is not how the system is supposed to work. The Advise and Consent of the Senate is supposed to be about qualifications, not political positions.

Frankly, it's sad when the confirmations are so clearly divided based on party ideology.
 
Frankly, it's sad when the confirmations are so clearly divided based on party ideology.
Click to expand...
It is, but we're heading into straight politics here. I'm a bit guilty as well.

Let's get back to discussion of the budget measure itself.
 
Here is my assessment of the six anti-gun proposals listed above from the 2013 budget.

The gun-walking prohibition is too new to be overturned; this proposal is political posturing.

The proposal to scrap military firearms and brass is probably the least achievable. The proposal directly affects firearms ownership (buying surplus guns) and use (shooting reloaded ammo), so it is easy for legislators to understand. It also affects lots of guns owners, so there would be a large and very loud pro-gun backlash against the proposal.

The Canadian export licensing and C&R re-importation proposals are probably reasonably achievable. While the proposals directly affect firearms owners, the number of people actually involved in the activities is probably pretty limited and their voices would have little weight by themselves with legislators. These are proposals that pro-gun legislators could probably accept as part of a bargain because they could be perceived as only impacting a few voters.

The proposals to change the language prohibiting FFL records centralization and releasing tracing data are more interesting. The proposals are probably reasonably achievable because they do not actually eliminate the prohibitions. Changing the language from a permanent ban to a continuing ban could be passed off as simply making the wording consistent with other parts of the law. A change in wording with no real, current effect would be tougher to fight vigorously and even harder to resist in a horse-trading situation. While changing the wording might have no current effect, it would make a future fight over the prohibitions more difficult to sustain.
 
Does anybody know how our govt. works?
According to the Constitution the president can't actually introduce a bill or budget into congress, only suggestions. All the money he spent on printing up his budget was wasted. It means nothing and it could never be passed in the first place. I suppose it could be re-introduced by a Senator or such but everybody knows as it stands would never be passed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top