Why do people assume Congress CAN ban Arms?They can't!

There is a LOT of misinformation in this thread.

Wow.

Tizona

They cannot really ban the weapons, in any sense.

They probably cannot even limit mag caps because that could be construed as limiting the common-use weapon itself.

Their only real shot is to incrementally work up to registering all firearms, and taxing them and making waiting periods mandatory.

unfortunately, I think they could achieve the aforementioned within a foreseeable future.

However, they would need a crap-ton of money to waste in order to register even a fraction of the weapons that people have been buying up since 2008.

every year has been a bigger historical number of gun sales than the last by a terrifyingly disparate amount. They would never be able to confiscate them, buy them back, or register them severely without wasting money that is just not there for such frivolous endeavors. And, let's be honest: if the Canadians had a majority non-compliance rate to their gun registry, how bad do you think such a thing would go here?

I know, I know. Blind faith in the American spirit and the sense of justice that has been decimated by apathy and poor decision-making, and all that aside, I just don't see them coming out of this without losing more than they stand to take, and with no results to show for any of it. It's pointless from a financial and statistical perspective. I feel like this is all to make someone feel good and make someone else feel guilty without any expected results.

powderx said:

Agree with schmoe that panic isn't good and can be used as schmoe posits. We've seen this many times on other fronts. This isn't to say there's no fight to be had and its not to say that everyone is in a panic. But a LOT of folks on these boards reek of panic. Don't let them smell fear.

Click to expand...

Since when is it "panic" to simply acknowledge what we are up against?

Quote:
Search here, or google, for the words "ban" or "confiscate". Gun owners have gone completely chicken little panic mode.
There will be no ban, there will be no confiscation. Feinstien knows it. Her goal is incremental. The "panic" helps her to achieve that.

Sure, there are a lot of folks over reacting in the short term.

However...

Knowing that the ultimate goal is confiscation through incrementalism, how is it wrong to fight against that now?

Should a cow headed down the chute start fighting from the start or wait until it's at the slaughterhouse door?

I doubt any panic is going to help her confiscate guns, incrementally or not. I really don't think feinstein and company get it. Whether they think can whittle away at them slowly, or all at once, I don't think they understand the meaning of 300 million. I can't picture the meaning of 300 million anything, except that it's A LOT. Already, I don't see how they could possibly set up the bureaucracy to track and register, let alone round so many guns.

We don't have 300 million. Hell, we can't get the entire membership of The High Road to agree that any infringement is unacceptable.

If you doubt the incremental approach, you haven't been paying attention to the rest of the Western Hemisphere in the last seventy years.

if they managed to take 300,000 guns per year, it would still take them 1000 years to take them all. I have no idea how many could be rounded up at once if someone were to try, but I do know that it would take more effort than most people are willing to commit to.

Other than the fact that certain guns, types of ammo, and gun parts/accessories are incredibly difficult to find at present, what real problem is there with gun owners being scared of losing their rights? Feinstein and Friends aren't great white sharks fueled by the fear as though it were blood in the water. Fear, rational or not, isn't going to help any laws be passed.

On the contrary, if every gun owner in America is scared enough to speak up for the first time in their lives, Congressmen all over America are going to hear from more people on one specific issue than they ever have before. Outstanding!

Agreed. Panic is never a good response, but a well placed fear may prompt some into action that had never considered it before. And that is, in the words of Bobson, "Outstanding".

You really shouldn't try to speak in a reasonable manner, they will only call you paranoid for sure by pointing out the obvious.

It is really ridiculous to postulate historical references of government usurping power as being some sort of diatribe on mass paranoia.

If you want to live in lalaland and believe that these folks in political power that completely disregard the rule of law couldn't do whatever they feel like doing, go ahead. The rest of us will live in reality and understand some simple truths. Many in office in Washington D.C. have long since abrogated their oath to protect and defend the constitution a long time ago.

1911 guy said:

If you doubt the incremental approach, you haven't been paying attention to the rest of the Western Hemisphere in the last seventy years.

Click to expand...

The rest of the western hemisphere don't have the sheer volume of guns nor the number of owners/enthusiasts that we do. They don't have a 2nd amendment type guarantee for the most part. Most didn't have the sheer number of people who participate daily in Concealed carry, nor the tradition of hunting that we do. in most of western europe, hunting was and is for rich people. they will always have that, and it will always be prohibitively expensive for common folks to enjoy, which helps keep gun ownership down. Most of the rest of the world don't have the wealth, the leisure time if they have the wide open spaces to enjoy guns for sport as we do. I don't necessarily believe in american exceptionalism, as we've been in a pretty sorry state politically, socially, and economically (as far as most of us common folk go) for 30-40 years now. But we are unique among nations, I'll give us that. And I don't think there is going to be any more gun control, at least not in a way that interrupts our lives. There may be requirement for background checks on private sales, there may be safe storage requirements (hopefully reasonable). I don't see magazine limits, nor assault weapons bans passing. It's simply not popular enough amongst the people to do so, and given how few people actually bother to vote, there will be a rout in the next election of whomever votes for such nonsense.

as to SCOTUS, I don't think people here should worry too much about the balance being upset. for the most part, the people of retirement age are more left leaning. Whatever replacements obama makes will be for ginsberg and souter, possibly kennedy, if he decides to quit early. I don't see scalia quitting in the next 4 years, unless he dies in office. He's way too partisan to give up with a Democrat in the white house. And then one has to pay attention to the fact that sometimes these people don't operate the way one would expect. A few of the more left leaning justices in recent times were appointed under conservative republican presidents. And on top of that, one must remember that so called liberals and conservatives are not monolithic groups. Gun owners and 2nd amendment supporters come in all shapes and sizes, from all different backgrounds.

Alaska444, sarcasm does not become you. Well, yeah it does, but some with their heads in the sand just won't get it.

Anchorman, I'll happily send you some history books that will categorically refute just about everything you just posted.

Germany, austria and other surrounding germanic nations had a very strong firearms culture, to the extent that Austria even has a national holiday revolving around rifle marksmanship and related contests. Gun ownership was hardly the rare thing you seem to assume it was.

As for leisure time and expendable income, prior to the collapse of the Weimar Republic, what we now know as Germany had the leading economy in the world and everyone else, including he good ol' U.S. of A looked to them for innovations in manufacturing and science. Of course, all that was finally remedied once and for all by the democratic election of Adolph Hitler to the Chancellorship.

Do we want to look at England, too? While their hunting traditions did differ greatly from our own, it was not a pastime reserved only for the wealthy. Just like here, money helps procure more opportunity, but many estates were open to hunting for a fee, just like game leases are here, or even guided hunts. The only thing differentiating them from us is our national and state park and reserve system, which allows free public access. Gun ownership was not restricted "much at all" until the socialist labor party took power in the late seventies or early eighties. Then "not much at all" turned into a nightmare of epic proportions.

Or maybe France? How were all those poor unarmed farmers able to fight the revolution and put the kings head on a platter? And mount a resistance to Nazi occupation before the rest of the world began sending aid? They were armed.

Then there's the most recent example of Australia. We've got members on this very board who lament their own complacency in dealing with "reasonable" gun control when it first gained a foothold in the nineties. Millions upon millions of rifles, shotguns and handguns were confiscated.

While I agree that we as Americans are not exceptional by any "chosen people" way, we have been exceptional in our resolve to jealously guard our freedoms. Until now.

joeschmoe: you're both right and wrong. You are correct that incrementalism is their primary weapon. They take just enough as they can to continue to seem "reasonable" for the time being, as they know taking too much* at once could be the end of their jobs. The current Feinstein AWB is such a classic trick it should be obvious. Just like any used car salesman or junk dealer sets the price on something far higher than he knows it's worth, just so he can be "talked down" to a more reasonable price. The buyer then feels like he's getting a real deal and that he won something, even though the shady seller planned on lowering the price all along. It's a classic sellers tactic. High-ball the price and then come down to the price you really planned on all along. Feinstein proposes this massively unrealistic and imposing bill that we freak out about. Then a short while later a more "reasonable" bill is proposed so that it can look like they're compromising. When they're still really just taking something and we're getting nothing in return. Getting robbed of $5 instead of $100 is not a win for you. Losing less than you thought you might is not a gain. We need to pay VERY close attention to the bills and proposals that are coming out after the Feinstein proposal. That's their real game.

*But you're wrong that they just "can't". You're right, they don't have the legal authority to ban all guns. But neither does a criminal have the legal authority to steal from your house. That doesn't stop them from trying and succeeding. They're only stopped after the fact if they get caught. A successful robbery is a successful robbery, whether it was legally prohibited or not. And similarly, the Feds do indeed have the ability to ban guns if they choose. They can physically type out a bill, physically vote on and pass the bill, and the physically send out orders to their agencies to enforce the bill. And with enough agents willing to go along with it, they can certainly make it happen. A SCOTUS ruling would only make it illegal far after the fact. Just like a cop catching a thief weeks after a crime. The SCOTUS being able to deem a bill unConstitutional only matters after the bill is passed and enforced. Only then can it be brought to their attention through a long process. And by then the damage could very well be done. hso made some very good points about gun dealers and distributors going out of business whether a bill is found to be legal after the fact or not.

Don't confuse their lack of Constitutional authority with a lack of desire or physical ability.


Anchorman, 1911 guy, othera: It is somewhat correct that this is not a Left/Right, Democrat/Republican issue. But it IS an authoritarian/libertarian(small L) issue, and even an individualist/collectivist issue. The right to own firearms for the defense of yourself, your family, and your freedom is very much an individual liberty. Collectivists are opposed to this because they see individuals as cogs in the greater social machine. Police and soldiers who are selected and mandated by the "People" are the ones who should be carrying guns, not you the individual. And authoritarians see firearms use as very dangerous to their own machinations. An armed people is not a people easily subjugated. But there is a "correlation not causation" factor in this. One cannot deny that members of a certain political party vote against gun rights more often than the other. That is just fact backed up by public voting records. Did they vote this way because of their party? Just as are all members of a party in favor of or opposed to gun control because of their party? No. Correlation, not causation. But the mindset that pushes one towards their political leanings also influences their individual policy choices. Someone who is very much in favor of individual rights, personal responsibility, and smaller government controls over the people would find gun control deplorable. Whereas a collectivist and authoritarian sees gun control as essential because it makes it easier to fit individuals into their mandated place in greater society. These people are also the ones who see government solutions to many many other issues as favorable. So no, it is not a "Democrat/Republican" issues per se, but it is no coincidence that certain mindsets, such as learning more towards collectivism vs. individualism, are found in large amounts on one side of the spectrum vs. another. The use of lethal force is the final physical act in enforcing ones will. The individualist sees an individual enforcing their own will through the individual use of arms as paramount. The collectivist sees the collective will being enforced through agents of the collective society, police and military, as paramount. But it still comes down to whether one sees the individual as a sovereign end of his own, or just a component means to a collective end. The rhetoric spouted by one end of the political spectrum vs. the other can easily demonstrate these views. Collectivists spout views and champion legislation that places the collective good first. Individualists do the same but with legislation that places the individual will first. The fact that the political party platforms tend to fall along these same lines is easily seen, and quite telling

Hmm, the news today is that the White House will move quickly on gun control through a combination of legislative and executive order actions.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/08/white-house-ramps-up-talks-on-gun-control-measures/

So much for the constitutional protections folks keep believing are still in place. The president can do a complete end run around all of the constitutional provisions with an executive order just like he did with the immigration issue for instance. I take him at his word that he will move by the end of this month.

Overturning an executive order is nearly impossible today:

To date, U.S. courts have overturned only two executive orders: the aforementioned Truman order, and a 1995 order issued by President Clinton that attempted to prevent the federal government from contracting with organizations that had strike-breakers on the payroll.[8] Congress was able to overturn an executive order by passing legislation in conflict with it during the period of 1939 to 1983 until the Supreme Court ruled in Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha that the "legislative veto" represented "the exercise of legislative power" without "bicameral passage followed by presentment to the President."[9] The loss of the legislative veto has caused Congress to look for alternative measures to override executive orders such as refusing to approve funding necessary to carry out certain policy measures contained with the order or to legitimize policy mechanisms. In the former, the president retains the power to veto such a decision; however, the Congress may override a veto with a two-thirds majority to end an executive order. It has been argued that a Congressional override of an executive order is a nearly impossible event due to the supermajority vote required and the fact that such a vote leaves individual lawmakers very vulnerable to political criticism.[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order

We must continue to pressure Congress and especially the House Speaker. This deal can never reach a floor vote without the House Speakers go ahead to take it out of committee.

I believe we have better numbers of pro gun people in Congress today than in 1994. The AWB in 94 passed by just one or two votes in the House.

With a dem majority and a sunset clause. Very few people owned AR then compared to now.

joeschmoe said:

The issue is simple.

Do you believe that Congress has the power to ban Arms? Yes or no?

I say no. They lack the power to do so and will fail in their attempt for the reasons I listed in my OP. Further, I believe they know it and won't try, thier goal is incremental.

It is truly sad how many Americans think the President is a king who can issue EO to ban arms, rewrite the Constitution or confiscate thier property. Or believe that Congress has the power to do such things.
They don't. Never had it, never will.

Click to expand...

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you really need to read the news for the last four years. Obama has over and over again done things that he was not supposed by the constitution.

In any case, EO can only effectively be overturned by another sitting president. Look up the Dream Act and then look at Obama's EO a few months ago. Yes, yes, he can't do anything at all.

please don't limit anything to the past four years. the previous president did this too. your argument looses any credibility when you only are upset about what this guy is doing and not upset about when the previous guy did the same for reasons that you approved of.

anchorman said:

please don't limit anything to the past four years. the previous president did this too. your argument looses any credibility when you only are upset about what this guy is doing and not upset about when the previous guy did the same for reasons that you approved of.

Click to expand...

Who states I don't take that into account my friend. However, simple fact, that is time past and they are no longer president, Obama is.

Once again, I have already answered this charge from you in several other posts.

Ragnar Danneskjold said:

Anchorman, 1911 guy, othera: It is somewhat correct that this is not a Left/Right, Democrat/Republican issue. But it IS an authoritarian/libertarian(small L) issue, and even an individualist/collectivist issue.

Click to expand...

I guess my deeper point is that it is not so cut an dry. I am a collectivist in some realms, an individualist in others. It's rare that you find anyone 100% one or the other in all aspects of life. many people who consider themselves individualists are actually authoritarians when it comes to their home life, and dealing with their wife and kids. many people who consider themselves collectivists are individualists when it comes to the right to self defense, or the right to drink alcohol. These things take as many forms as there are people. If members here on THR and other gun forums keep talking about this in simplistic political terms, we alienate people who would otherwise be allies. I know, more people who identify as "conservatives" and vote republican tend to be in favor of gun rights more than others. But every time I read something here or elsewhere about "dirty liberal blah blah blah" I am taken aback. I don't take it too personally, but it is tiresome as an advocate of the 2A (and the rest of the constitution) to have people constantly attacking for my other beliefs, when I am in a place where we are nominally here to talk about the RKBA for defense of family, home and country, and enjoyment of shooting sports/hunting. I wonder how many people don't feel comfortable engaging in the gun community (if you can call it that), because they don't like constantly reading disparaging remarks about their other political beliefs? This isn't about whether you are for or against social welfare and affirmative action, this isn't about wether you think government has a role in regulating business or not, this isn't about whether you think pray in public school is a good idea or not.

It is about recognizing that all else aside, when the shtf, or when you are in dark alley or in broad daylight getting attacked, when someone comes into your house at night without being welcomed in, that you have a right to take care of that situation before it escalates to the point where you aren't going to do anything ever again. It's pretty basic. And the more people feel the need to drag their other beliefs out and put them on parade, the more people are divided and the easier it is for the anti gun types to push their agenda. I write this with the hope that some of the more vocal "conservatives" here, might understand that though they are represented in larger numbers, there are many friends and allies to be made if we leave the other baggage at home and stop with the damning talk about "liberals".

joeschmoe said:

But you can't seem to cite any of this for us? What did he do that "he was not supposed by the constitution"? Any thing specific like abolishing a fundamental right? The question was Congress, but no POTUS can't abolish a fundamental right either. He hasn't, they can't. Read the Constitution. It is still the law of this land and has been upheld by the SCOTUS.

How does that viotate the Constitution? What section and paragraph should I look up?
How does the Dream Act effect our fundamental right to arms?

So you do believe the President is a king that can use EO to ban/confiscate our arms? How about Congress?

Click to expand...

Have a great day, believe as you wish my friend. Take care.

Why do people assume Congress CAN ban Arms? They can't!

Click to expand...

People assume that they can because that is what the national government has done for the last 100 or so years. The courts are appointed by the government and have changed to go along with this idea that government can do whatever it wants. An amendment was required to ban the sale and mfg of alcohol. Drugs were banned with a law not an amendment. Why did something change? Not the founding laws but the beliefs of the people and who they elected.

So why do they assume they can? They assume they can because they have been taught the government exists to provide for them. They look to the government when something happens and demand answers. I could go on and on but you get the idea. They will still get elected and there are very few judges in high positions who are actual constitutionalists. I mean you don't get appointed unless you will support a big government agenda.