If Ron Paul Gets Elected,What gun laws would he change ?

[S&W 910]

If Ron Paul Gets Elected President,What gun laws do you think he would change ?


Would he allow automatic weapons ?

Would we no longer need CHL'S to carry ?

No background checks ?

Would Felons be allowed to own guns ?

Your thoughts

 

[pcosmar]

All of them.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1096
H.R. 1096: Second Amendment Protection Act of 2007

He has already been trying.

 

[CletusFudd]

As President he couldn't change any laws. He could sign them but not change them.

 

[kcmarine]

Ever found it weird that a President can deny the importation of millions of firearms into this country AND destroy three- quarters of a million M- 14 rifles with the stroke of his pen, but he can't strike down unconstitutional laws in the same manner?

According to the Oath of Office, it should be the other way around...

 

[antarti]

As President he couldn't change any laws. He could sign them but not change them.

The power of the executive pen alone could accomplish a LOT:

1) Vetos
2) Remove existing executive orders (some of which DO pertain to weapons imports)
3) Chief LEO can start firing people (who serve at his pleasure) immediately, and not refilling their positions (i.e. think how effective the IRS or ATF would be with 1 employee)
4) Set policy for ALL Federal Law enforcement (i.e. ignore victimless crime, reinterpret "sporting purposes" clause)
5) Have the Justice Dept start putting cases in front of the Supremes, or better yet not contesting cases vs. people whose rights have been infringed
6) Lower Federal courts get all new judges!
7) All political appointees in the departments get tossed out on their butts. If he learned anything from Clinton, he could ban them all from becoming lobbyists too!

I am quite sure there are more that will become apparent... those are just off the top of my head

 

[22-rimfire]

The importation ban on Semi-autos was done by George Bush (Sr.) by executive order as I recall. That is when I bought an Uzi carbine. Powerful tool. But changes in law would have to move through both houses of the legislature and there would be a tremendous amount of support against any changes.

 

[xd9fan]

But changes in law would have to move through both houses of the legislature and there would be a tremendous amount of support against any changes.

unless "we the people" put the hurt on them to change.

 

[benelli12]

destroy three- quarters of a million M- 14 rifles

That really hurts

I hate it when people carry out gun genocides

 

[nemoaz]

According to the Oath of Office, it should be the other way around...

Hmmmm. What part of the oath of office or constitutional allow the president to pass new legislation?

 

[AntiqueCollector]

If the 86 MG ban cannot be removed, he could have his secretary declare an amnesty...and render the ban useless.

 

[Vitamin G]

Yes... an amnesty... with 3 years advance notice...

"I'll be giving amnesty in 3 years to anyone with any currently illegal weapons. Between now and then, I'll be ignoring all prosecution of such crimes of possession. Carry on."

 

[gego]

I think you would soon understand what "shall not be infringed" means. This is an absolute like perfect. There is not just a little perfect; something is perfect or imperfect and there is nothing in between.

Ron Paul can read, unlike countless judges and the majority of lawyers and politicians.

Whatever is within his power as President to follow the absolute meaning of the 2nd amendment, you will get from him. Some of these have already been listed by other posters. I doubt that they have been complete in his actions to enforce this right, deemed by the Founding Fathers to be more important only to the 1st amendment.

I have been looking on the internet to see what working Sherman tanks are available for sale.

 

[LawBot5000]

• He could appoint libertarians to the head of DOJ and the ATF. Plenty of good candidates out there. David Hardy would be an outstanding pick as head of ATF- he already knows the law and he has tons of agency experience from his days in interior. Stephen Halbrook would make an outstanding AG. He already has plenty of SCOTUS experience and his heart is in the right place IMO.
• He can appoint awesome judges to the supreme court and other slots on the federal bench. Kozinski, JR Brown, etc there are so many wonderful libertarian justices sitting around on the federal circuit.
• His agency appointees could rewrite a significant portion of the federal register to be more friendly to gun owners. That akins accelerator wouldnt be an MG anymore. 7.62x39 wouldnt be legally considered a pistol round. The USAS-12 would be sporting, as would the street sweeper. There are a ton of horrible decisions that the ATF could reverse if the right people were running the agency. Let's not forget all the stupid regs about what constitutes an importable "sporting" handgun from the 60s and 70s.
• He could repeal the various executive orders banning the importation of ammo or the sale of US milsurp to civilians. This includes Bush's 89 import ban.
• He could issue pardons to anyone convicted of violating 18 USC Chapter 44 (gun control section) and 26 USC sections NFA (forget numbers 5846-5850 or so, but I need to check).

 

[LawBot5000]

There are two ways a president could attack 922(o).

1) As suggested in David Hardy's original paper, the AG could simply hold that the correct interpretation of 922(o) is that a signed Form 1 or 4 is adequate to constitute "under the authority of the united states" and simply begin signing MG transfer and making forms again. This would actually be more consistent with the way in which we interpret other federal laws.

2) He could simply grant 90 day amenesties every 3 months for the next 4 years until all the market demand is satisfied.

 

[glockman19]

But wouldn't you still have to follow state laws? In California I would still have to go through the Sheriff in Los Angeles County to get my CCW and He doesn't issue them.

 

[pcosmar]

He has stated that he would trim of eliminate many government programs.
The IRS is first on his list, I believe the BATFE would be next. Closed, go home.
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst97/tst102097.htm

Gun Control? Disarm The Bureaucrats!
Proves that while faces, parties change, Congress stays the same By US Representative Ron Paul
A cursory reading of the Constitution makes it clear that there was never meant to be a federal police force. The Constitution, the highest law of the land, explicitly defines the role of federal government and correctly reserves the authority, power and responsibility for police activities to local government. Why? Because it is at that level where potential abuses can be minimized by a watchful citizenry.

See also.
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2003/tst042103.htm

 

[antarti]

But wouldn't you still have to follow state laws? In California I would still have to go through the Sheriff in Los Angeles County to get my CCW and He doesn't issue them.

Maybe, maybe not for long. You would have a federal bench that would be very friendly to protecting individual rights under the 14th Amendment.

 

[kcmarine]

Hmmmm. What part of the oath of office or constitutional allow the president to pass new legislation?

No part of the Oath of Office or the Constitution allow the President of the United States to pass legislation unilaterally. However, the President must promise to "Protect and Defend the Constitution". These gun laws run counter- current to the Second Amendment. So by reversing these laws with executive orders, the President would, in fact, be protecting the Constitution. Too bad the government doesn't see itself that way.

 

[telomerase]

It was President Bush's Transportation secretary who made it officially illegal for pilots to be armed, right before 9-11. The President has a LOT of power in the current system. (Maybe he wouldn't if the Supremes actually enforced the Constitution, but...)

 

[Limeyfellow]

It was an executive order that chopped up most the M1911a1s in the US arsenal into scrap metal.

Even though most of the M14s and M1911a1s were junk and not worth keeping at least a couple of thousand were still in good working order.

 

[Fifth Column]

As President he would probably be within his powers to dismantle the BATFE to a shell. He would also be able to dictate the enforcement of federal laws to federal agencies and attempt to put into the US attorney's office prosecutors he felt would try to achieve his goals.

 

[RealGun]

He could affect regulation but couldn't change ANY laws because he has no allies.

 

[PaladinX13]

That's nonsense. On an issue by issue basis, he has allies on BOTH sides of the isle meaning true statesmanship and not just partisan politics and deadlocked government as usual.

He doesn't have many (different than any) allies that agree with him on everything, but he doesn't need them too. The Office of President isn't supposed to be a childish popularity contest with half the Congress pouting they didn't get their man.

 

[RealGun]

On an issue by issue basis, he has allies on BOTH sides of the isle meaning true statesmanship and not just partisan politics and deadlocked government as usual.

That's an interesting point, but the Congress is far more partisan than that. Paul is a Libertarian, everyone knows it, and few if any share his overall philosophy. They keep their distance. He is called "Dr. No" for a reason.

 

[Kentak]

He won't be elected. I'm not saying that's a good thing or bad thing, just stating reality.

Even if he was, he couldn't change a single gun law. That's Congress's job. A president could, however, have some effect on how some laws are enforced through executive order. Still, Congress can tie his hands there, if it has a mind to.

K