Please be mindful that there are many different views on the forums. The only thing we all agree on is the AR-10 is an awesome rifle!

Assault Weapons Ban DROPPED from Gun Bill !!!

More
11 years 9 months ago #18649 by Sharkey
Assault Weapons Ban DROPPED from Gun Bill !!! was created by Sharkey
Assault weapons ban dropped from Senate bill

By Rachel Rose Hartman, Yahoo! News | The Ticket – 1 hr 15 mins ago.. .


Democrats on Tuesday confirmed that a proposed ban on assault weapons will not be included in a package of gun reform legislation yet to be introduced in the Senate, suggesting the measures do not have broad support in Congress.

The bill's sponsor, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, confirmed to reporters Tuesday that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will remove an assault weapons ban from a package of gun reform legislation, and offer it separately as an amendment.

"I very much regret it," Feinstein said of Reid's decision. "I tried my best."

Reid's decision signals how politically volatile the issue of an assault weapons ban remains and suggests gun reform measures would die in the Senate if it included such a ban—something many political observers had long suggested.

Following the Dec. 14 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., Feinstein introduced legislation to reinstate the assault weapons ban, which was first passed in 1994 under President Bill Clinton and expired in 2004.

But despite a burst of energy behind the reduction of gun violence in the wake of the shooting—energy that some believe has already begun to wane—the ban threatens to place Democrats who represent strong gun rights constituencies in a tough electoral position, and continues to be highly unpopular among Republicans.

The Senate Judiciary Committee on March 14 passed Feinstein's bill, which banned assault weapons as well as magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The committee has also passed a bill that would expand background checks for gun buyers and close the so-called gun show loophole that allows people to avoid a background check if they buy weapons from private sellers. That bill, which Democrats on the committee hoped could attract Republican support, passed without a single Republican vote, a bad sign for its chances in the Senate.

The assault weapons ban was hailed by Democrats including President Barack Obama, who has advocated for the measure. "These weapons of war, when combined with high-capacity magazines, have one purpose: to inflict maximum damage as quickly as possible. They are designed for the battlefield, and they have no place on our streets, in our schools, or threatening our law enforcement officers," Obama, in a statement, had said at the time.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 years 8 months ago #18975 by fivewhy
Replied by fivewhy on topic Assault Weapons Ban DROPPED from Gun Bill !!!
Obviously this is great news. The weapons ban and the magazine ban will be introduced as amendments to the base bill. The crux of the base bill will be universal background checks. I sometimes look to see how the media describes things rather than what they are actually saying. With that in mind, I find this Washington Post editorial fairly informative. washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013...n-control-advocates/

So I guess my point is that when the media is acting as tho failure of the weapons ban and the mag ban are both a forgone conclusion, it's a pretty good sign for us. I envision background checks as not even getting passed in the senate bc they need 60 votes to do it. They def do not have 60 on the two bans, but as best as I can guess, they don't seem to have on the universal checks either.

Now, let's just assume the Senate does pass the background check, w none of the two bans passed. Well, this would be the worst case scenario bc it's the most capable of passing the house. However, bc Representatives are elected every two years, i do not beleive there is any way anything makes it thru the House....harken back the election following the 1994 ban when all those reps got voted out.

Now, another scenario is that somehow the background checks gets passed by the whole of the Senate, and the mag ban is somehow successfully passed as an amendment. Well, I think that this would actually make the antigun folks' life harder bc it makes it less likely the House passes whatever the Senate passed...tho my understanding is that the amendments can be treated separately, and the House can reject individual amendments. But I'm not really sure as this gets a lil arcane for my blood. I dislike legislative procedure, horrendous. Judicial procedure, I'm cool with.

I envision the worst case (but not most likely case) is a background check getting passed by the whole of the Senate bc they have 6 year terms and can more easily weather the fallout. However, universal checks I do not think will ever pass the House. So in the end, we end up w a whole of nothing. Which is good, but good lord can we get supply and demand back under control yet. Tho, hopefully more ppl now own weapons now than before. But the hoarding needs to stop. Why? So that I can start hoarding my own crap at cheaper prices than the current ones!! :)

Anyway...I'm done blabbering.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 years 8 months ago #19021 by Sharkey
Replied by Sharkey on topic Assault Weapons Ban DROPPED from Gun Bill !!!
What do you think about executive orders on any of these issues getting dropped FW? The mutt on the top still has that option and I wouldn't put ANYTHING past him... :(

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 years 8 months ago - 11 years 8 months ago #19032 by fivewhy
Replied by fivewhy on topic Assault Weapons Ban DROPPED from Gun Bill !!!
Whether the Prez can issue an EO to implement the same rules as those sought in the legislation creating the: a) mag ban b) firearm ban c) universal checks. Can he do that with an EO?

The short answer is: not no, but hell no.

I don't mean to sound like a tool here, so excuse me if I do. I've been working and have not yet had my weekend toddy. I'm being quick so I can go do that. Basically, the federal government is a "limited government" specifically bc the founders/framers were worried about a strong central govt that would become authoritarian and do the same things King George did, yadda yadda. The broadest power the federal govt has is established by the Commerce Clause which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. Thanks to J. Edgar Hoover, the commerce clause was expanded by SCOTUS to permit the federal government to have some traditional police power . Technically, the federal government does not have what is called "general police power;" that is reserved for only the states via the 10th Am. If you look at the dates of all the big SCOTUS cases expanding the commerce power, they occurred around the time Hoover was the chief federal police officer. But some ppl may disagree with my point, here. Anyway, the federal government is limited. However, the power the federal govt does have is generally held by the Congress (the legislative branch), not the President (executive branch). The only powers of the president are those powers expressly stated in the Constitution, there are no implied powers granted to the President by the Constitution. If the Constitution does not say he can do X, then he cannot do X. The other source of executive power is power that has been delegated or authorized by the Congress. Think of the three branches like a game of rock, paper, scissors. In other words, the President can never do anything that is not authorized by either the Constitution or federal statute enacted by Congress. He can mobilize the military without Congressional approval bc the Constitution lets him do that. But he cannot declare ware, bc the Constitution says he cannot do that. He cannot levy taxes either, only Congress can, but he can certainly collect taxes (think: IRS, executive agency). Think of levying taxes as the same as creating a rule that says how much you have to pay. Congress can say how much you have to pay, but not the President. But the President can put you in jail when you don't pay what Congress says you have to pay.

Here is a list of all the EOs over time. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Sta...ral_executive_orders Check out the text of some of these more recent ones. You will notice they have an authorization clause which states where the authority to issue the EO came from. Some just say the Constitution, while other names specific statutes. For example, EO 13626 was (as the president correctly claimed at the time) authorized by the Constitution and section 311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) (33 U.S.C. 1321), section 1006 of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2706), and 3 U.S.C. 301. This EO was basically a response to the oil spill in the Gulf. Well, the point is that the Congress had already delegated authority to issue that EO. It is the executive branch that enforces the law. Authority to enforce the law is no where near the same as authority to enact law, even if an EO carries with it the "force of law." EOs are basically similar to regulations. For instance, Congress will enact a pollution statue, but give the EPA authority to promulgate rules to bring the purposes of that statute to fruition. And this makes sense bc sometimes it is the executive agency that has subject matter expertise in the area. Congress does not need to be diddling around with the minutia. Whether its an EO, a regulation, or something else, there must be an enabling clause in the statute that enables/authorizes the President or the executive agency (e.g., FDA, FCC, EPA, DOD, whatever) to issue the EO or promulgate the rule or to conduct whatever the "act" is. If the issuance of the EO by the president, or the promulgation of the rule by the exec agency, goes beyond the legislative authority granted in the enabling clause, then the executive order/act/rule is void. Now, this means bringing a case in a federal court and going thru that b*tch of a process, but in the end, if authority was clearly exceeded, the Court will fix the problem.

So what's that got to do with guns? Well, there is nothing granting the President authority to promulgate or order a ban on anything or to require universal checks. If he had authority to do this on his own, Congress would not be diddling around with it right now. It would have already happened.

Further, the president was no power to arbitrarily ban legal property just by the stroke of a pen...why? Because the government (meaning the executive, legislative, and judicial branch) cannot deprive some of life, liberty, or property without giving that person due process of law. Due process will be different in every situation, but the point is that the president cannot just up and say: you no longer have the liberty to sell your lawfully owned property unless you follow my rules. Now, Congress can do this universal-checks crap through its own legislative power, but the executive cannot do it bc nothing authorizes him to do it. I still stick to my original argument that Heller prevents Congress from enacting the bans, def the weapons ban and maybe the mag ban. But I believe a universal check law is going to be constitutional...if it passes. But I see no way it passes the House, even if the Senate somehow manages to do it (which I also doubt).

Side note on due process, the government can kill you (deprive you of life) as long as it gives you due process. Usually, this means giving you a jury trial with judicial review and all that. But, if you start shooting at a police officer, the officer can kill you on the spot with no judicial review or sanctioning. This is called an extrajudicial killing. However, in order for the extrajudicial killing to be lawful, there must have been an "imminent threat of immediate" harm. And that threat of harm must have been for "serious bodily harm" or "life threatening." Obviously, this requirement is met when a bad guy is shooting at a cop. But if a bad guy is fist-fighting a cop, the cop can't just kill him. The cop is only authorized to return proportional force. And ppl argue about what is "proportional" every day. Also, think about the Civil War. The President killed what...300k american citizens with no trial. 650k total died, but idk how many from each side. Anyway, all those killed had taken up arms against the Nation, and therefore the President was authorized to order extrajudicial killings (i.e., to order his soldier to fight on the battlefield).

But ehhh....don't take my word for it. These are just my opinions. But I am not worried about anything at this point...just worried about when my dern .308 dies are gonna come and when the local dude is going to get Varget back in stock. I got bullets, cases, primers out the butt, but no powder or dies. Tho, I got 9mm covered. However, my 9mm handloads are horribly inaccurate. *shakes fist* ...I digress. Time to go out now.
Last edit: 11 years 8 months ago by fivewhy.
The following user(s) said Thank You: jtallen83

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 years 8 months ago #19035 by MrMarty51
Replied by MrMarty51 on topic Assault Weapons Ban DROPPED from Gun Bill !!!
and I think that if or when any of these firearms or magazines legislations gets passed,then,if a person would get pulled over,checked/searched,a firearm is found,it is/was purchased from an individual,no background check or any federal involvement,then that person would get jailed/fined for being in posession of an firearm that is not registered,firearm confiscated,yaddayaddayadda.
What a crocofcrap.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 years 8 months ago #19043 by fivewhy
Replied by fivewhy on topic Assault Weapons Ban DROPPED from Gun Bill !!!
Oh yea, and there is a label for what you have when one person in a government can make rules that all people have to follow without any sort of review by an independent body of government. That word is: fascism. Lol, I don't mean to be flippant, but the President definitely cannot make these rules up through executive orders. And if he tries, we give the Court one chance to fix it. If SCOTUS fails to correct the problem, for some dumbass reason which I never see actually happening in real life, the fourth branch of government has to step in. This will not happen though. It won't. Nothing going on right now is that serious. None of the media folks are talking about any craziness. Honestly. These are just old farts who like the jobs they have and want to keep them, while continuing to play power games and we fiddle around with our toys. All is perfectly good. Sen Feinstein would not be cool with those orders happening, not the ban as an EO. As traumatized a person as she is from walking in on the shot-up dead body of the mayor, she is still mostly sane. Mostly. To me she is more of traumatized woman, who thinks of herself as "strong." And so she thinks she is doing the right thing by fighting against what she, erroneously, views as the problem. Ehhh...f'ing women. :usa:

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 years 8 months ago #19050 by BUILDING MY SASS
Replied by BUILDING MY SASS on topic Assault Weapons Ban DROPPED from Gun Bill !!!
:twothumbs:
BMS


Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 years 8 months ago #19051 by OleCowboy
Replied by OleCowboy on topic Assault Weapons Ban DROPPED from Gun Bill !!!
Nice write up fivewhy,,,that said the authority for EO's in fact only pertains to the Executive branch, BUT (this negates everything I just said) we have a dictator in office, not a President and he has written EO that in fact exceed his authority. But the courts will decide OR will they. Some EO's are written and impact mostly govt workers, but there is a way around this and when an EO is PUBLISHED in the Federal Register, CONGRESS has 30 days to take action on it or it becomes LAW...

EO: www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/preside...ons/executive-orders

EO that become law: www.archives.gov/federal-register/execut...ers/disposition.html

I put NOTHING beyond our Dictator in Chief!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 years 8 months ago - 11 years 8 months ago #19232 by BUILDING MY SASS
Replied by BUILDING MY SASS on topic Assault Weapons Ban DROPPED from Gun Bill !!!

OleCowboy wrote: Nice write up fivewhy,,,that said the authority for EO's in fact only pertains to the Executive branch, BUT (this negates everything I just said) we have a dictator in office, not a President and he has written EO that in fact exceed his authority. But the courts will decide OR will they. Some EO's are written and impact mostly govt workers, but there is a way around this and when an EO is PUBLISHED in the Federal Register, CONGRESS has 30 days to take action on it or it becomes LAW...

EO: www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/preside...ons/executive-orders

EO that become law: www.archives.gov/federal-register/execut...ers/disposition.html

I put NOTHING beyond our Dictator in Chief!


I AGREE FULLY.... :cowboy:
BMS
Last edit: 11 years 8 months ago by BUILDING MY SASS.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 years 8 months ago #19245 by Siscowet
Replied by Siscowet on topic Assault Weapons Ban DROPPED from Gun Bill !!!

fivewhy wrote: But ehhh....don't take my word for it. These are just my opinions. But I am not worried about anything at this point...just worried about when my dern .308 dies are gonna come and when the local dude is going to get Varget back in stock. I got bullets, cases, primers out the butt, but no powder or dies. Tho, I got 9mm covered. However, my 9mm handloads are horribly inaccurate. *shakes fist* ...I digress. Time to go out now.

Great write up five why, and thank you. Not to hijack the thread, but I found RCBS small base 308 dies on Amazon for a fair price. You might check them out if you need them. I found Reloader 15 when the Varget was out.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.