New President, does that mean new gun laws

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BIGDADDYLONGSTROKE

Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2006
Messages
496
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.
 
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).
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
My advice: stock up on firearms, ammo, components and learn Spanish.
Click to expand...
'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.
 
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.
 
I believe that Lone Gunman may have offered some sage advice. At this point, gridlock would be a good thing.
Biker
 
B. Stay home or don't vote for the Republican candidate.
Click to expand...

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!)
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
----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."
 
Once in power they will propose a new AWB which will be much more restrictive than the last one.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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...
 
-------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.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top