Buy your assault weapons now

[midcountyg]

The crowd that promotes "the president will regulate an AWB into existence" seems really vague and unclear on exactly how this would go down. The executive branch only controls enforcement of laws, and it is unclear to me from what law the ATF would suddenly derive authority to regulate hi-cap mags, semi-autos, etc. out of existence. They could probably crack down on imports via 922, but they could have done that already...

There's also the inconvenient fact that this would massively alienate him from even his allies in the House and Senate. The members of these institutions do not like seeing other branches take powers that they think are rightfully theirs, regardless of how those powers are used. If he did what some people claim he could do, his entire agenda would be in jeopardy.

That is not even mentioning that this would be something like unilateral political suicide for the Democratic party. Not only would the AWB hurt them in elections, the obvious and flagarant abuse of executive powers by "their guy" would haunt them for a long, long time during presidential elections. BHO does not hate guns more than he loves the Democratic party. No way.

All in all, it seems like the sort of baseless FUD that would be spread by a Republican party operative, or maybe the gun industry. There are perfectly good reasons to worry about the president's record on guns; fear of a magic executive-imposed AWB is not one of them.

Keep in mind, a large portion of what the BATFE goes by are 'education's and not necessarily laws brought through congress. It is a long stretch for bobo to do it with out congress,, and yes he would alienate some. But you must realize how back handed and arrogant he is. He will be even more so knowing it is his final term.

 

[erwos]

Keep in mind, a large portion of what the BATFE goes by are 'education's and not necessarily laws brought through congress.

I disagree. The ATF's regulations are based on laws and judicial rulings, albeit their particular interpretations of those laws might sometimes be politically-motivated.

 

[ridethemessiah]

I think I'll be buying stock in ammo companies here shortly.

not now buddy. demand is wayyy too high. gotta wait till the shareholders mean a little more to the ceo's. then you buy.

 

[Rabu Rabu]

Unfortunately, we're boned on victory of either of these guys. Romney would do something equally stupid in his time in office, given his history with Mass.

But I'd like to clear the water on Obama's statement, everyone panicked when they heard "AWB" and their ears shut down, ignoring all that came after.

A short synopsis of what he said was that he would like to try and reinstate the ban, but he also feels it wouldn't make much of a difference in crime prevention, he then goes on afterwards to say that in his home town of Chicago most of the crimes are being done with cheap handguns, so legislature over "assault weapons" wouldn't affect anything.

Also, if you think of it this way, if Obama DID get re-elected, he's got so much opposition on him in terms of gun owners, he'd never have a legislation laid on his desk. However if Romney won, I have a feeling the guard would drop and he could sneak some things through if he felt the need.

Besides, congress wouldn't allow anything like that, after the proof back in 94 that it did jack and shit to help anyone.

 

[midcountyg]

,

I disagree. The ATF's regulations are based on laws and judicial rulings, albeit their particular interpretations of those laws might sometimes be politically-motivated.

Do your homework on 922r for instance. Was not originated by congress, was put in place by Bush Sr, after he had the BATF push it to his desk. In 1989 Bush put regulation 922 in effect, which banned the import of 'non sporting' rifles. Then importers sent the parts in and US companies put them together. That was when I bought my B-West Am, US receiver but all other parts Chinese. Then in 1990 congress got involved and added to it, making it 922r. That was when it defined the parts count. Essentially our President put a gun ban in effect then, so yes bobo could make his own regulations as well.

 

[RustyGunner]

Is there any danger of a ban coming through an executive order (not really sure how they work)? We all know how much Obama loves those...

Executive orders are direct Presidential instructions to executive branch employees and institutions and have no force of law outside that chain of command. I don't believe the President can lawfully order the commission of an unlawful act. The President cannot, for example, order citizens to turn in firearms, nor can he order federal agents to seize them without statutory law allowing such an act. Chris Matthews notwithstanding, you're not obliged to obey the orders of the guy in the White House unless you're in the armed forces, and nothing in the Constitution forbids telling him to go get knotted.

 

[dist1646]

If they take away your 2nd amendment rights, all others become privileges and can be taken away at their whim. You only have rights when you are capable of defending them. Obama is the reason I bought my first AK. I don't trust him. He has nothing to lose in a second term. Romney will be looking for a second term if elected and will not want to lose his conservative base. I look at both as not good for 2nd amendment. I look at Obama as an employee hired to do a job and was not capable of doing it, therefore, he needs to be fired. The possible consequence of this election is not causing me to panic buy, only slightly alter the order of planned purchases.

 

[RustyGunner]

,

Do your homework on 922r for instance. Was not originated by congress, was put in place by Bush Sr, after he had the BATF push it to his desk. In 1989 Bush put regulation 922 in effect, which banned the import of 'non sporting' rifles. Then importers sent the parts in and US companies put them together. That was when I bought my B-West Am, US receiver but all other parts Chinese. Then in 1990 congress got involved and added to it, making it 922r. That was when it defined the parts count. Essentially our President put a gun ban in effect then, so yes bobo could make his own regulations as well.

"Regulation 922r" is, in fact, 18 USC Section 922(r) of the Gun Control Act of 1968. This was an act passed by the US Congress. As originally passed, it created the "Sporting Purpose" concept in US firearms law. All rulemaking regarding parts counts and such is in support of this statute. The President lacks the authority to change so much as a punctuation mark in this law without an amendment passed by Congress authorizing such.

"(r) It shall be unlawful for any person to assemble from imported
parts any semiautomatic rifle or any shotgun which is identical to
any rifle or shotgun prohibited from importation under section
925(d)(3) of this chapter as not being particularly suitable for or
readily adaptable to sporting purposes except that this subsection
shall not apply to -
(1) the assembly of any such rifle or shotgun for sale or
distribution by a licensed manufacturer to the United States or
any department or agency thereof or to any State or any
department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or
(2) the assembly of any such rifle or shotgun for the purposes
of testing or experimentation authorized by the Attorney General."

That's 922(r) in its entirety. Everything else is interpretation.

 

[AliasNeo07]

Y'all can call it panic buying, over-reacting and assorted tinfoil labels.

I think a lot of the current thinking here on a new "assault weapons ban" is too closely associating it with the prior one. Consider the old one a starting point. They are not going to make the same mistake twice and allow for the previous sillyness.

My .02 is that any new assault weapons ban will be written to be much more comprehensive, permanent and much, much harder to be revoked - as O has already stated. It won't be law, it will probably be regulations. It will not only define what limitations there will be to future purchases, but it will also incorporate a registration of existing articles similar to NFA.

Think more like:

-All new purchases are like Aussieland(pussies)/Britain(pussies)/Canada(cold pussies) whatever.
-All existing things you can keep, but to be legal you must register and you have 1 year, or some irrelevant timeframe.

Now, you didn't register, you are a felon/terrorist.
If you did register, you are on THE list.

Happy Hump Day.

Boobies.

I think you are very correct here. Zippy said four years ago, that if he was able to put a AWB in effect it would not have all the loop holes the last one had. I don't think there will be post ban configured ARs, AKs, and others. I think he will go right to banning all semi autos. If they classify the so called assault weapons as NFA regulated, it forces owners to register or be charged with felony charges. I could see him trying to do this through regulations, and trying to bypass congress as he has done with many other things.

I just don't see it.

The crowd that promotes "the president will regulate an AWB into existence" seems really vague and unclear on exactly how this would go down. The executive branch only controls enforcement of laws, and it is unclear to me from what law the ATF would suddenly derive authority to regulate hi-cap mags, semi-autos, etc. out of existence. They could probably crack down on imports via 922, but they could have done that already...

There's also the inconvenient fact that this would massively alienate him from even his allies in the House and Senate. The members of these institutions do not like seeing other branches take powers that they think are rightfully theirs, regardless of how those powers are used. If he did what some people claim he could do, his entire agenda would be in jeopardy.

That is not even mentioning that this would be something like unilateral political suicide for the Democratic party. Not only would the AWB hurt them in elections, the obvious and flagarant abuse of executive powers by "their guy" would haunt them for a long, long time during presidential elections. BHO does not hate guns more than he loves the Democratic party. No way.

All in all, it seems like the sort of baseless FUD that would be spread by a Republican party operative, or maybe the gun industry. There are perfectly good reasons to worry about the president's record on guns; fear of a magic executive-imposed AWB is not one of them.

This x1000. My opinion is that Obama will win, barring any ridiculous stuff he does in the next couple weeks. It will be close. Even if he gets the house and the senate, I don't see an AWB. The republicans would be against it, not to mention there are enough pro-gun dems in this high gun-ownership states that would not go for it. Even if there weren't any pro-gun dems...I don't think the anti-gun dems want to risk something so volatile. Especially when sales of these so called "assault weapons" have been skyrocketing. All this is moot because, unless I'm incorrect, the dems have next to no chance of taking back the house, correct?

I'm not worried about an AWB in the next four years. I'm worried about SCOTUS appointments that will erode our 2A rights.

 

[jrumann59]

I am trying but when I enter assault weapon on slick guns I get no results, are they all sold already?

 

[Haides]

erwos & RustyGunner, thanks for clearing that up for me. I don't have the best understanding of how our gov't works... Ironically, I think my public school education is partly to blame... Go figure.

 

[Scott7891]

"Regulation 922r" is, in fact, 18 USC Section 922(r) of the Gun Control Act of 1968. This was an act passed by the US Congress. As originally passed, it created the "Sporting Purpose" concept in US firearms law. All rulemaking regarding parts counts and such is in support of this statute. The President lacks the authority to change so much as a punctuation mark in this law without an amendment passed by Congress authorizing such.

"(r) It shall be unlawful for any person to assemble from imported
parts any semiautomatic rifle or any shotgun which is identical to
any rifle or shotgun prohibited from importation under section
925(d)(3) of this chapter as not being particularly suitable for or
readily adaptable to sporting purposes except that this subsection
shall not apply to -
(1) the assembly of any such rifle or shotgun for sale or
distribution by a licensed manufacturer to the United States or
any department or agency thereof or to any State or any
department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or
(2) the assembly of any such rifle or shotgun for the purposes
of testing or experimentation authorized by the Attorney General."

That's 922(r) in its entirety. Everything else is interpretation.

However 922r did not exist in 1968. Before 1990 imported "assault weapons" were not required to have U.S. parts. Why do you think pre-ban guns go for so much and I mean true imported pre-bans like FAL, AK, G3, etc. it is because they use genuine factory parts not U.S. clones.

The order was written as an "emergency" response to the mass shooting that occurred in 1989 in California by a sicko shooting some school kids which thus started California's Roberti-Roos "Assault Weapon Ban" that started California's anti-2nd Amendment crusade that is still 12-years strong.

 

[RustyGunner]

However 922r did not exist in 1968.

Correct, as it turns out, 922(r) was an amendment that came in as part of Title XXII of the Crime Control Act of 1990, sponsored by none other than our radiant Vice President.

The order was written as an "emergency" response to the mass shooting that occurred in 1989 in California by a sicko shooting some school kids which thus started California's Roberti-Roos "Assault Weapon Ban" that started California's anti-2nd Amendment crusade that is still 12-years strong.

No. I say again, and this is elementary civics, the President cannot wave statutory law into existence all by his lonesome. All he can do is sign laws sent to him by Congress. He has no emergency authority to create law out of whole cloth. He can only direct the implementation of laws passed by the legislature. No executive order can alter the text of a public law.

 

[Tyeraxus]

While you are correct that the President and Executive Branch cannot unilaterally implement statutory law, they can indeed create regulatory law. Regulations, found in the Code of Federal Regulations, implement statute, and to a lot of executive departments/agencies, statute is worth very little until the implementing regulations are in place. Each section of the regulations has an agency that's responsible for it, and are deferred to when interpreting the regulations.

ATF's little corner of the regs is 27CFR. These are the implementing regulations for statutes involving alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives, and ATF doesn't have to go to Congress to change them. For example, the machinegun ban, could morph into a de facto assault weapons ban by simply changing the definition of machinegun at 27CFR 479.11. At that point, unless Congress passed a statute specifically at odds with the new definition, ATF's regs would be deferred to by the court system.

Now changing regs can be a complicated process. The proposed change would need to be published in the Federal Register, and the public would have a chance to comment on the Proposed Rule. Then regs normally get tweaked a bit, changed into Interim Rules, which are in force but have another comment period, and then the Final Rule is published. However, regs can go from Proposed Rules to Final Rules fairly quickly, as there's no requirement that the Agency in question actually make any changes in response to comments. You then have to fight the regulation in court, and good luck with that since the courts will generally defer to the agency unless you can show they abused their discretion or violated the language (not the intent, but the language) of the statute they're citing as the basis for the regulation.

 

[Dogabutila]

Unfortunately, we're boned on victory of either of these guys. Romney would do something equally stupid in his time in office, given his history with Mass.

But I'd like to clear the water on Obama's statement, everyone panicked when they heard "AWB" and their ears shut down, ignoring all that came after.

A short synopsis of what he said was that he would like to try and reinstate the ban, but he also feels it wouldn't make much of a difference in crime prevention, he then goes on afterwards to say that in his home town of Chicago most of the crimes are being done with cheap handguns, so legislature over "assault weapons" wouldn't affect anything.

Also, if you think of it this way, if Obama DID get re-elected, he's got so much opposition on him in terms of gun owners, he'd never have a legislation laid on his desk. However if Romney won, I have a feeling the guard would drop and he could sneak some things through if he felt the need.

Besides, congress wouldn't allow anything like that, after the proof back in 94 that it did jack and shit to help anyone.

So he only wants to ban assault weapons and handguns....

 

[RustyGunner]

While you are correct that the President and Executive Branch cannot unilaterally implement statutory law, they can indeed create regulatory law. Regulations, found in the Code of Federal Regulations, implement statute, and to a lot of executive departments/agencies, statute is worth very little until the implementing regulations are in place. Each section of the regulations has an agency that's responsible for it, and are deferred to when interpreting the regulations.

Understood, but regulating in the absence of an underlying statute is coloring outside the lines.

ATF's little corner of the regs is 27CFR. These are the implementing regulations for statutes involving alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives, and ATF doesn't have to go to Congress to change them. For example, the machinegun ban, could morph into a de facto assault weapons ban by simply changing the definition of machinegun at 27CFR 479.11.

Expanding the definition of "Machinegun" to include semiautos is a stretch, and not likely to survive judicial review, especially in light of Heller.

It's silly for gunnies to wrap themselves around the axle over this issue every single election cycle. Is it technically possible to jury-rig a gun ban out of existing law? Yes. Is it politically feasible or in any way likely? Less so than at any time in the last 50 years.

 

[Tyeraxus]

I never said it would pass judicial muster. And the machinegun redefinition was just an example showing that there is enough statutory framework in place for someone to reach for if they really wanted to. Sure, NRA, SAF, etc., could and probably would challenge and would stand a good chance of winning, but you better believe it would wind up going for cert at SCOTUS because no Administration wants to see its regulatory powers slapped down, leading to appeals all the way up the line. Heller left the door open to regulation, remember, saying that "Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." If another Aurora happens (God forbid), you think anti-gunners won't latch onto the word "dangerous" to push through anything they can get?

 

[ridethemessiah]

i wonder how possible it would be for the legislation to just say "anyone not otherwise prohibited from owning a firearm, can buy whatever the hell he wants".

I will take two M14's, circa vietnam M16 and an AT-4. Thank you and have a nice day mr. gun shop sales rep.

 

[Inigoes]

i wonder how possible it would be for the legislation to just say "anyone not otherwise prohibited from owning a firearm, can buy whatever the hell he wants".

I will take two M14's, circa vietnam M16 and an AT-4. Thank you and have a nice day mr. gun shop sales rep.

Before 1938 you could do exactly that.

Before the OK city bombing, you could buy explosives in hardware stores.

 

[sdog]

crazy stuff, i hope that a new AWB does not happen.