"bans" and "restrictions" after the election

[TY44934]

This is a spin-off of the two other threads about what we can expect with the new administration and the next 4 years.

We are likely to see:

1) new laws passed by Congress and signed by the president, such as H.R. 6257: Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008 (google it or see the other thread), and

2) administrative restrictions that the president can order WITHOUT going through Congress.

We can lobby against #1 through Congress. We are not likely to stop #2.

So, what could we see from the oval office?

1) Import bans. Even under the current president, there have been new bans on the import of foreign guns and gun parts - including a ban on the import of barrels for the Sig 556, the AK-47, and the Galil (among others). Its likely that these bans will expand. First and foremost could be a ban on all high cap magazines made overseas.

2) Lead production reductions or bans. Did you know that lead wheel-weights are being phased out? There is also an initiative to lower air-born lead by cracking down on lead "manufacturers" (actually, smelting plants that refine ore and recycle lead). Just as world lead and copper prices come down, so we face higher domestic hurdles/prices.

3) Environmental restrictions. See above. Moreover, the EPA might easily get involved in "reclassifying" and thus, shutting down shooting ranges. How? Simply declare them "hazardous waste sites" and require clean-up.

4) "lead free" and thus "shelf life" ammunition. Google SigArms Academy. Their range is 100% lead free. Problem is: 100% lead free ammunition starts to become inactive after 5 years. Its not a conspiracy or intentional design feature. Its just that the lead free primers that currently exist don't last much longer than 5 to 7 years - which is why the police will ONLY use lead free ammo as training ammo. The administration could use the EPA to force the use of lead-free primers - resulting in much higher ammo costs as well.

5) Restrictions on NFA/title II firearms. Expect an end to the "trust" route and possibly other tightening of availability of NFA items. Travel, storage and audit requirements could get much tougher if the BATFE were ordered to do so.

Please limit this thread to only discussions of what the administration can do on its own (ie without congress).

[JBnTX]

I don't think so.

Gun Control is fast becoming the 3rd rail of politics.
(the 3rd rail analogy is about the 3rd rail of an electric train.
Lesson being, touch it and you're dead) Bring up gun control and
you're dead politically.

If you notice gun control wasn't even a factor in the election.
That's the fault of the NRA. They should have hosted a debate
on gun control.

But as optimistic as I am, this is not a time for gun owners to set
back and relax.

We need to contact our elected representatives and let them know
that we will not stand for any gun bans and will vote them out of office.

We can be silent no longer!

[TY44934]

We need to contact our elected representatives and let them know
that we will not stand for any gun bans and will vote them out of office.
We can be silent no longer!

By "elected representatives", I assume you mean Congress? If so, that misses the point of my post.

I am not talking about laws passed by congress. I am talking about administrative law - which the president can implement without congress' involvement.

What about those?

[JBnTX]

....
I am not talking about laws passed by congress. I am talking about administrative law - which the president can implement without congress' involvement.

What about those?

He's a president, not a king!

Obama can't do anything by himself, he needs congress.

It's congress that will enact any new gun control laws.

That's where the fight is!

[bankfraudguy]

The old AWB hurt Clinton. Pretty much anything with the word "ban" in it is distasteful to us Americans. I'd be willing to bet that any plan will be silent, seemingly minor, and through the back door. The anti's learned allot in the last ban. They learned that you can't just BAN something; you need to take it away, make it prohibitively expensive, or unusable. like:

Lead ammo bans
LARGE excise taxes (the current tax stamp for class 3 weapons was intended to be prohibitively expensive)
Taxes on everything related to guns and parts.
Licensing on the above
Mandatory education requirements
Complicated registration procedures requiring legal assistance to navigate
Prohibiting sales in all but the very most rural areas
Shutting down online markets
Limiting at home reloading (like they did with alcohol)
Prohibiting direct private sales.
Unreasonable storage requirements. (you can own it, just keep it at the police station, that's all)
EPA / Zoning / Insurance shutdowns of ranges and training facilities


It'll come in the night and be sold as "for the common good". Then we'll wake up one morning 20 years from now and wonder what happened to our break barrel 12ga. This is a serious issue and the general gun community needs to get past black rifles vs. FUDD's.

As reasonable as I think I am, I cannot fathom why anybody would want to disarm citizens. I of course do not want gang bangers to have suppressed automatic rifles, but for what earthly reason can I NOT ? And it has nothing to do with need. I could go on a hit and run driving spree too, but I’m not barred from buying/owning certain types of vehicles. “why do you NEED a corvette that goes 170mph when the speed limit is 65?” makes no sense right?

BHO will have to play to the center, but he has written allot of checks to get to where he is now, and when some of those far left nutjob liberals come to cash them, the big question is whether or not he has the stones to keep his word. Will we get Obama the presidential candidate, or will we get the Illinois senator ?

I for one am cautiously optimistic it’ll be the candidate, but ever vigilant and watchful for the state senator.

[Gutshot John]

new laws passed by Congress and signed by the president, such as H.R. 6257: Assault Weapons Ban Reauthorization Act of 2008 (google it or see the other thread), and

Please see the other thread on 6257.

Brushing up on the legislative process might not be a bad idea either.

As for the rest of it, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, but if he does it through regulation (if it can actually be done that way) it isn't without consequence as there are laws that must be complied with.

Administrative law isn't so much the regulation itself as the laws governing regulatory bodies.

[texasyid]

Sorry JB gotta raise the flag here. All he has to do is sign an executive order.
Clinton did it after AUG tried importing the USR as a sporting rifle. We are screwed.
Don't want to be a doomsayer but things do not look good for us law abiding gun owners.

[Gutshot John]

Sorry JB gotta raise the flag here. All he has to do is sign an executive order.

Actually no, it's a different issue. The executive order banned importation, it didn't ban ownership.

[TY44934]

Actually no, it's a different issue. The executive order banned importation, it didn't ban ownership.

-but he is on the right track.

CONGRESS did not ban the USR's import.

CLINTON on his own banned the import (congress had nothing to do with it. At all).

Its called "administrative law" (i.e. - we are NOT talking about the legislative process here).

[Gutshot John]

Its called "administrative law" (i.e. - we are NOT talking about the legislative process here).

Sorry but that's wrong, "Law" by definition is legislation that is produced by a legislative body. Regulation is something different.

Administrative law establishes, governs and limits regulation and regulatory bodies. It is not the regulation itself. What he's talking about IS indeed regulation.

The president cannot simply wave his hand and do anything he wants. The administrative law limits the scope of what can be regulated. Moreover any regulation that's put in place must go through a comment/review period. This latter requirement IS administrative law.

All of this ignores that the executive order itself has NOTHING to do with the 2a. It's a trade issue dealing with the importation of firearms. There is nothing in the 2a that proscribes such in order. Especially if congress enacted legislation giving it to him. The executive order, regulation, cannot prohibit the individual ownership of firearms. Ownership isn't importation and business can indeed be regulated/controlled.

Lastly an executive order only applies to the executive branch (I believe) and the National Government (I know). It could not be used to govern the actions of individual states or citizens.

Do regulatory bodies hold extra-constitutional power? on some level I'd agree, but you're conflating issues and misunderstanding how the process works.