New President, does that mean new gun laws


PDA






BIGDADDYLONGSTROKE
April 29, 2006, 02:45 AM
This is probably as stupid question, but what do yall think the likely hood of the next president reinstating the old gun laws where you can only have ten rounds in a mag and only own certain guns. And if its probable should one go out and buy as many 15 and 30 round mags as he can find? I dont even know if the next pres could do such a thing, but just sittin at work wondering.

If you enjoyed reading about "New President, does that mean new gun laws" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
SomeKid
April 29, 2006, 03:33 AM
May depend on other factors.

If the new President is a Dem, 100% chance. If it is an R, then other factors come in. For example, Bush with a D congress, we would still have that damn AWB. Congress will determine the future AWB and other gun laws, not the Exec (although the Pres can sure bring some force to bear in pushing it).

Don't Tread On Me
April 29, 2006, 03:37 AM
Well, a ban or restriction would require that the Congress pass it first. So, not necessarily. Now, a president can make a huge impact by being a national cheerleader for that particular gun control bill, and of course, the leftist media will join in to assist. This might put enough pressure on Congress to do it (like the last time).


The real danger is the EO's (executive orders). Here, a president can basically sign a piece of paper and do serious damage. For example, Bill Clinton banned ALL U.S. surplus ammo from being sold to the public. No more military surplus. Only thing we can get is components or factory 2nds which were never military stock in the first place.


A future president can reinforce the BATFE quite a bit. Have them crack down on FFL's badly. They could rule 7.62x39mm ammo as "non-sporting" and ban its import. Or, they could just ban its import because they have power over the State Dept. and trade issues.


There are a LOT of things a president can do even without the Congress passing gun control bills. It's just that most of these things go undetected by the average gun owner (bubba) who doesn't pay much attention. FFL's and those in the business DO notice and often pay the price.

Kamicosmos
April 29, 2006, 03:45 AM
Don't Tread On Me got it pretty good. The Pres can do a lot without congress with those executive orders. And, having an R by his name doesn't mean jack, See Bush I for a good example of that. And, IMO, Bush II would have signed a AWB bill, just like he said he would.

Personally, I feel dark days are ahead for us gun owners. I think the house and senate will swing back to RINO and Demo control, and we will have a Demo president, I just hope it's not Hillary. Regardless, I think we'll see not only a newer, more strict AWB, but we'll get to experience a 'Assault Handgun Ban' too.

Now, one bit of light at the end of the tunnel. Hopefully the illegal immigration and border concerns will take more precedent over any gun stuff in the near future, as those issues should. Time will tell. For now, I recommend buy 'em while you can.

BIGDADDYLONGSTROKE
April 29, 2006, 04:23 AM
thats what I was thinking I guess Ill start stocking up the 30 round mags for my AR.

Hkmp5sd
April 29, 2006, 04:24 AM
I don't think everything is gloomy. The democrats seem to be avoiding gun control at the moment. Hillary is sounding more like a republican every day. The blood filled streets following the AWB sunset never occured and the number of states with a "shall issue" CCW is growing. The truly diehard anti-gun states each have their own AWB in place and other than Feinstein, are happy to ignore the rest of the country.

Remember that the AWB/Brady Bill that Clinton signed shortly after entering office had already been in congress for 5 or 6 years. It was a long fight that the democrats only managed to get passed by having both control of congress, the White House and including the sunset clause that allowed the fence sitting republicans to vote in favor of the ban.

Even the president's powers are limited. All Bush and Clinton could do with executive orders is interfer with imported firearms and ammunition and with government owned surplus firearms and ammo. Yea, they could crack down on FFL's, but even that isn't scary. It's not that complicated for a FFL to follow the rules.

Ala Dan
April 29, 2006, 08:48 AM
:uhoh:

mec
April 29, 2006, 08:59 AM
"QUIET PLEASE~! "

excellent response, as usual.

ACP230
April 29, 2006, 11:07 AM
Some Democrats are downplaying the gun issue now.
That will not continue if they regain control of any branch of government.
It's been a long time since I voted for a Democrat for any office besides local ones.
It's gonna be longer. Guns and taxes are the reasons.

WT
April 29, 2006, 11:12 AM
Based on Iraq, gas prices, Katrina, illegal immigration, etc., I think the Republicans will be swept out of Washington. With a Democratic president and Congress I forsee that they will enact draconian gun laws, worse than anything we've seen.


My advice: stock up on firearms, ammo, components and learn Spanish.

Mannlicher
April 29, 2006, 11:17 AM
There is no doubt at all, that if there is a Democrat elected to the White House, then brace yourself for immediate and draconian gun restrictions. The AWB can be reinstated by a simple Executive Order. If the Dems take control of the WH, and either house of Congress, then kiss all of
your gun rights goodbye.

Just my humble opinion of course, but backed up by myrid examples of how Bill Clinton handled things, and the continual efforts and speeches of the left wingers to disarm all of us.

Lone_Gunman
April 29, 2006, 11:22 AM
I think there are some Democrats still in power that support gun control, but most have learned that the issue is best left alone.

The only ones who still support pushing for gun control are those in places where there re-election is almost certain, such as Kerry, Feinstein, Schumer, Kennedy, etc.

In areas where the elections are closer, Democrats won't push gun control.

The bottom line for me is that the Republicans have done more to hurt our country in the last 6 years overall, than they have helped us on the gun rights issue. Campaign Finance Reform, Medicare Reform, No Child Left Behind, Patriot Act, and failure to control the Mexican Invasion, all outweigh the benefit we got from the AWB sunset and gun manufacturer protection from lawsuits.

I think the only hope for our republic is to split the power in Washington between Democrats and Republicans, and let grid lock and partisan politics keep them from passing legislation.

So, I will be looking for moderate Democrats in the next few elections. Up until this administration, I have never voted Democrat for anything, and have been (and actually still am a member of the RNC). However, I do not believe the Republicans have done what they should have done since 2000.

Tom Servo
April 29, 2006, 11:40 AM
My advice: stock up on firearms, ammo, components and learn Spanish.
'nuff said.

Thing is, I don't know how much ground-level support the Democrats will really have next election. It's doubtful that there will be much of a political swing in Congress anytime soon, and the Democrats have done alot of damage to themselves in the public eye the last ten years.

Even though they're extremely vocal, and they have a bunch of shrill and self-righteous celebrities (who are, after all, the REAL experts on policy) on their side, the Left has been losing faith with the average voter for quite some time. They're a vocal minority, but still a minority. People still remember the public-image damage done by Bill Clinton, Cynthia McKinney, etc.

On the state level, the trend is toward more gun rights in all but the usual Blue states. The recent protests and marches were meant to guilt people into feeling sympathy for illegal immigrants, but from what I've seen, all they've done is make people realize how huge the problem really is.

Best case scenario for the next election: Hillary runs, and the Republicans come up with a middle-of-the-road candidate. If the Democrats were smart, they'd find somebody moderate and obscure, but I doubt that. They'll most likely push an anti-war, pro-illegal immigration ticket, which will likely get all sorts of loopy celebrity endorsements and be couched in angry contrarian rheotoric. The average voter doesn't want to hear it.

The real concerns going into the next election will be unemployment, fuel prices and national security. None of these are strong points for the Democrats.

Silver Bullet
April 29, 2006, 11:50 AM
The democrats seem to be avoiding gun control at the moment.

Some Democrats are downplaying the gun issue now.

I think there are some Democrats still in power that support gun control, but most have learned that the issue is best left alone.

Ha! Check their voting records on RKBA issues.

Lone_Gunman
April 29, 2006, 11:53 AM
Ha! Check their voting records on RKBA issues.


I'd be willing to discuss any statistics you provide.

mordechaianiliewicz
April 29, 2006, 01:09 PM
We just don't know yet. Really, we just don't know. Come on, admit it.

I posted a thread on what a democrat would have to do to get my vote, and you know what? I couldn't guarantee that a Democrat who talks about guns in a very RKBA way would keep it up. Look at Clinton. He was quite pro-gun until he got national. I would just have hopes.

But lets look at Bush. He claimed we wouldn't go off nation building. He claimed we would focus on home. He claimed he would lower taxes and encourage economic growth. We're in Iraq, building a nation. We're far more engaged in "the war on terror" than on the Mexican Border, the oil prices, and solutions to being in the Middle East, and although there is "lower taxes" publically, the government has printed off more money to fund this war, effectively creating inflation. Bush lied up one side and down the other. Or was incompetent.

Plus, do any of you think Hillary can win? I doubt it. I don't think the Dems will even give her the nod. I think they'll run Mark Warner from VA, stay off of guns outside of their "socialist paradises" Kali, Neu Jersey, Neu York, etc. and the only thing we'll really have to worry about will be the border issue. Which while a huge issue, I think is manageable overall, simply bc the marches showed many Americans the gravity of the situation.

Biker
April 29, 2006, 01:23 PM
I believe that Lone Gunman may have offered some sage advice. At this point, gridlock would be a good thing.
Biker

ReadyontheRight
April 29, 2006, 02:01 PM
New President, does that mean new gun laws

Only if RKBA supporters:

A. Stay home from the primaries and let in McCain or Guilianni.
B. Stay home or don't vote for the Republican candidate.

Libertarianism isn't going to happen from the top down.

Manedwolf
April 29, 2006, 03:06 PM
B. Stay home or don't vote for the Republican candidate.


Because blindly voting on party, rather than person, history or issue is always the answer. :rolleyes:

(What party is Bloomberg, again? Might want to check!)

beerslurpy
April 29, 2006, 03:14 PM
This is probably as stupid question, but what do yall think the likely hood of the next president reinstating the old gun laws where you can only have ten rounds in a mag and only own certain guns. And if its probable should one go out and buy as many 15 and 30 round mags as he can find? I dont even know if the next pres could do such a thing, but just sittin at work wondering.

Presidents cant make law, but they (and their AGs and heads of the ATF) can make administrative rulings based on old laws. The "good" news is that the 68 GCA has already been completely tightened down to the point that there really isnt much worse that a new president could do to gun owners without the help of congress.

A good president might actually relax a lot of the rulings regarding sporting use that gave us the 89 ban, the 94 shotgun bans and the more recent barrel bans. A good president migth make an NFA amnesty multiple times a year, which would basically neuter the 86 ban.

antsi
April 29, 2006, 04:57 PM
----quote-----------
The democrats seem to be avoiding gun control at the moment. Hillary is sounding more like a republican every day.
--------------------

-------quote---------
I think there are some Democrats still in power that support gun control, but most have learned that the issue is best left alone.
----------------------

I believe that the Democrats have learned that it isn't a good idea to loudly advertise their anti-gun agenda during an election year.

I do not believe that they have really dropped their anti-gun agenda.

We will see more photo ops with Democrat candidates shooting skeet, and saying they support Americans' second ammendment rights to clay sports and hunting.

However, you will notice that they still usually follow this up with supporting bans on so-called assault weapons, which as they point out are not necessary for skeet or hunting. Once in power they will propose a new AWB which will be much more restrictive than the last one. If anyone points out the lack of effect from the last AWB and its expiration, they'll say that is only because the old AWB was too weak and had too many "loopholes." If this is successful, they will gradually expand the definition of "assault weapon" until it includes "assault BB guns" and "assault air rifles" and "assault squirt guns."

Lone_Gunman
April 29, 2006, 05:28 PM
Once in power they will propose a new AWB which will be much more restrictive than the last one.

That may be true, and I didn't like the AWB any more than anyone else.

However, we have paid a huge price for its expiration. By putting Republicans in charge, we now have new laws infringing on the First and Fourth Amendments. Campaign Finance Reform, Medicare Reform, No Child Left Behind, and the Patriot Act were too much of a price to pay for nothing but AWB expiration.

longeyes
April 29, 2006, 05:36 PM
The new several years should be "interesting." There will a lot of pressure from the Left to clamp down on firearms, in all ways. And there will probably never have been more reason to be armed, given the social scenarios I envision as real possibilities. How these two forces will eventually play out will be fascinating.

As others have said, get what you need now.

seeker_two
April 29, 2006, 06:01 PM
A few things to consider....

Most Democrats are smart enough to realize that, if the Republicans are swept from power (as WILL happen), it won't be because the Democrat platform has gained in popularity. The Dems will know that the true base of Republican support comes from those with conservative, pro-2A, pro-Constitution, pro-rights, anti-tax, anti-welfare state, pro-border security positions---and those people didn't vote for the crop of cr :cuss: p being offered by the GOP this time.

The Dems also know that, in order to get back into power, all the GOP will have to do is re-adopt their base's platform in word and deed. And the Dems also know that, if they push their liberal agenda too hard/too fast, that conservative base will mobilize against THEM (remember Klinton's comments about the NRA & the '94 elections?). So the Dems will play low-key in the beginning...for awhile.

As for the Republicans, either they rediscover conservatism by 2012...or they may become the third-party candidates who can't get into debates...

antsi
April 29, 2006, 07:13 PM
-------quote---------------
Campaign Finance Reform, Medicare Reform, No Child Left Behind, and the Patriot Act were too much of a price to pay for nothing but AWB expiration.
----------------------------

I think you're confusing what the alternative was.

President Gore would have vetoed Campaing Finance Reform? On first ammendment grounds? President Gore would have had a less expensive and more sensible alternative to Bush's medicare reform? President Gore would have had a better education plan? President Gore would have resisted the universal government urge to pass stupid laws after any tragedy (ie 911)?President Gore would have left the '94 AWB intact as it was?

I think the alternative under president Gore would have been the same Campaign Finance law, a worse Medicare reform law, and the same or worse hysterical statist over-reaction to 911. The AWB would have been "strengthened" to get rid of the "loopholes," and there would have been a massive push for national firearms licensing (which was part of Gore's campaign platform).

You're comparing the outcomes of the Bush presidency to your ideal of what a different president should have done. It's much more realistic to compare the Bush presidency to what a Gore or Kerry presidency would actually have been like.

seeker_two
April 29, 2006, 09:22 PM
President Gore would have vetoed Campaing Finance Reform? On first ammendment grounds? President Gore would have had a less expensive and more sensible alternative to Bush's medicare reform? President Gore would have had a better education plan? President Gore would have resisted the universal government urge to pass stupid laws after any tragedy (ie 911)?President Gore would have left the '94 AWB intact as it was?

...but would a conservate-GOP-controlled Congress LET him do that...and take the credit? :scrutiny:

Lone_Gunman
April 29, 2006, 09:39 PM
President Gore would have vetoed Campaing Finance Reform? On first ammendment grounds? President Gore would have had a less expensive and more sensible alternative to Bush's medicare reform? President Gore would have had a better education plan? President Gore would have resisted the universal government urge to pass stupid laws after any tragedy (ie 911)?President Gore would have left the '94 AWB intact as it was?


I think there is a chance he would have vetoed some or all of that stuff, though not on Constitutional grounds.

I think if a Republican Congress had sent Gore the Medicare Reform bill, he would have likely vetoed it. Not because Gore thought the free drugs for seniors was a bad idea, but because it didnt go far enough.

The end result would have been political gridlock, and NO law would have been passed. We would be better off because of that. Ideally I would like a President to stand up and veto something because he thinks it is unconstitutional. But, in the absence of that, vetoing something just because your political opponents support it is fine with me, if it means a law like Medicare Reform doesnt pass.

Instead, Bush signed the largest increase in government welfare since LBJ was in office. Not exactly what the leader of a political party supposedly dedicated to limited government and fiscal conservatism should do.

antsi
April 30, 2006, 09:31 AM
---------quote--------------
I think if a Republican Congress had sent Gore the Medicare Reform bill, he would have likely vetoed it. Not because Gore thought the free drugs for seniors was a bad idea, but because it didnt go far enough.
-----------------------------

Well, we can debate this all day long - it's pure speculation.

I would say that there was high political momentum for campaign finance reform and for a medicare drug benefit from both Republicans and Democrats and on both these issues, passing some kind of law was inevitable. In this case, whether the R or D were in control only determined the fine details, not the general outcome.

On guns, I maintain that a Gore presidency would have resulted in not just renewal of the AWB, but a "new and improved" AWB with another increment of more restrictions. He was actively campaigning on gun control and it would have been a major agenda from the white house.

Lone_Gunman
April 30, 2006, 10:02 AM
I would say that there was high political momentum for campaign finance reform and for a medicare drug benefit from both Republicans and Democrats and on both these issues, passing some kind of law was inevitable.

You need to go back and look at the debate that occurred when Medicare reform was being discussed. I followed that closely as I am in the medical field. Gore is on the record as having opposed the bill.

All of the Democratic leadership, Kerry, Kennedy, Schumer, Clinton, etc voted against the bill that became law. I do not think passing anything was inevitable, and I do not think Gore would have signed it.

I find it interesting that you are certain Gore would have pushed for the AWB, yet you accuse me of speculating when it comes to what he would have done with Medicare Reform.

Even if Gore had pushed for the AWB, with a Republican controlled house and senate, it would have still gone nowhere.

RealGun
April 30, 2006, 10:58 AM
This is probably as stupid question, but what do yall think the likely hood of the next president reinstating the old gun laws where you can only have ten rounds in a mag and only own certain guns.

The fat lady hasn't even warmed up yet. Don't assume that the next President will be Democrat, and certainly don't assume the Dems will pick Hillary to run. If the next President is a Republican, why would the party support reinstating a law they explicitly allowed to expire? A President can't do that alone, just as George Bush had little if anything to do with the expiration of the AWB. Congress did that, and it was due to a GOP majority.

308win
April 30, 2006, 11:24 AM
I believe that many moderately (if there is such a classification) anti-2A Americans and many who were apathetic are now moderately or strongly pro-2A for two reasons: The lawlessness in LA after Katrina and the illegal alien issue. The gun stores are doing a lot of business with much of it from first time buyers; the wait for an appointment to apply for a CCW permit is two+ weeks and the county where I got mine has a full-time and one part-time person taking and processing applications; it is almost impossible to get range time evenings and weekends unless you have a membership walk-ins can forget it. Call me a bliss ninny but I believe that an anti-2A action by congress would be a dicey proposition. As for Executive orders all bets are off.

antsi
April 30, 2006, 08:59 PM
---------quote------------
I find it interesting that you are certain Gore would have pushed for the AWB, yet you accuse me of speculating when it comes to what he would have done with Medicare Reform.
---------------------------

You misread me. I was accusing us both of speculating. We're both guessing about events in a past that never happened.

However, gun control was a major campaign issue for Gore. I think I am speculating on fairly safe ground there. He advocated a national firearms licensing scheme and was a major supporter of the AWB. Nor do I think it's a safe bet that the Republicans could have defeated Gore's anti gun agenda. For fence-sitting RINOS and Republicans from mixed districts, it was relatively easy to just let the AWB die from neglect. If those same RINOs had to go on the record voting against the AWB, the outcome could have been very different.

I realize that Gore was opposed to the Medicaid bill that was passed. However, Gore has always been a supporter of socialized medicine schemes and I think you are speculating on rather shaky ground if you are saying that a president Gore would have vetoed any Medicaid prescription drug bill that crossed his desk, just because out-of-power-gadfly Gore was opposed to the Republicans' version.

I just think you are advocating a dangerous strategy by voting for the more anti-gun party and hoping the other party will be able to defeat their agenda. Even if there is a "moderate" democrat running in your state/district, by electing him/her you are handing over power to ALL democrats, not just that individual. That puts people like Kennedy, Schumer, Feinstein, etc in the drivers' seat by being able to control what legislation gets introduced, control of committees, etc.

You're mad at the Republicans and disappointed that they moved away from core principles. I am too. But I still don't think your strategy of voting for the left-wing socialist gun control party is a good way to support conservative principles and RKBA.

antsi
April 30, 2006, 09:05 PM
-------quote-----------
I believe that many moderately (if there is such a classification) anti-2A Americans and many who were apathetic are now moderately or strongly pro-2A for two reasons: The lawlessness in LA after Katrina and the illegal alien issue. The gun stores are doing a lot of business with much of it from first time buyers; the wait for an appointment to apply for a CCW permit is two+ weeks and the county where I got mine has a full-time and one part-time person taking and processing applications; it is almost impossible to get range time evenings and weekends unless you have a membership walk-ins can forget it. Call me a bliss ninny but I believe that an anti-2A action by congress would be a dicey proposition
-----------------------

I won't call you a blissninny, and I do hope you are right.

However, public opinion on these things is rather fickle. Think about the kind of person who would have been in favor of gun control before Katrina, then suddenly changed their mind because they saw some lawlessness on TV. All we need is another Columbine or some such to dominate their TV screens for a week or so, and those same people are liable to blow right back the other way.

Art Eatman
April 30, 2006, 10:03 PM
A bit of thread drift, but a point of information: During the 2000 campaign, Gore campaigned in Tallahassee and thereat proposed Free Pills for me and the rest of us Old Farts. (I find it ironic that Bush got that passed.)

Art

If you enjoyed reading about "New President, does that mean new gun laws" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!