so whats up with these new gun laws?

[Lance 228]

Are they going to allow you to keep what you already have or will it be a possession of assault rifles and high cap magazines is illegal?

 

I'm all for some of the changes as far as keeping guns out of mental patients hands and i think a background check should be done on all sales private or public...of any kind...you should have to take it to a dealer and let them handle the paperwork for a fee or whatever...I just think that makes more sense....as i said before i know a few people myself who have no business owning a gun and I'd hate to think they could just trade for one and no one even know they had it...so i'm all for some things needing to be changed.

 

I think banning assault rifles is kinda pointless though....not going to really solve any problems with that.

[ThomasDenton 79]

And now Texas and Kentucky are presenting statutes to make Obama's new gun laws and executive orders null and void in their states. Looks like the States vs. Obamacare all over again. Also saw where a couple of GOP politicians (one in Florida and one in Texas I think) are looking to impeach Obama. This whole gun thing is going to get a lot uglier than the Obamacare fight I'm afraid.

[Lance 228]

yeah...i'm just curious how they are going to make you a felon for possessing something that you've owned for years?

[redtiger 1,740]

I would ink the NY gun laws would be a sort of blueprint. I would assume that new weapons restrictions wouldn't apply to guns already owned. Then again they may seize the newly illegal firearms and not reimburse owners(the founders will all roll over interior graves).

 

If new regulations are put into law then I wouldn't like it but I would go along with it(if thats the decision our representatives in congress then so be it) but if an executive order is put into place then I'm all for impeaching Obama. I honestly think an executive order that directly effects the rights guaranteed to Americans in the Bill of Rights equates to little more than a tyrant with an agenda. I know that sounds extreme but that's how I see it. Issues of such great importance should be decided by congress, not by any one man.

Edited January 17, 2013 by redtiger

[Lance 228]

as far as i can tell, and maybe UVAO can shed more light on it. The executive orders that pretty much all presidents use and have used, are only directions for how departments handle or process things dealing with laws that are already on the books. The President can't just create a law...but he can sort of affect how the laws are interpreted and carried out by the Feds...as so far as applications and that sort of thing go...but he can't really make any "changes" to the existing laws without going through Congress...thus the whole "balance of power" thing.

 

I'm not really sure, and i don't think its really ever been tested in court...as to how far the President can push the envelope on things...which is going to make the next 4 years of changes to the Supreme Court very important....hopefully no turnover or we are all screwed.

[ThomasDenton 79]

I don't know how they are going to enforce all these new laws anyway. There are tons of unregistered weapons out there, especially in this area where people buy, sell, and trade shotguns, pistols, deer rifles, etc. all the time without registering anything, no background checks, nothing. I think Obama sees a chance to gain more power with the people with so many (a pretty hefty majority some news outlets are reporting) wanting stricter gun laws. It'll also turn all those people against the GOP even more while the Republicans fight this, setting up for another Democrat Party victory in the next election. I know this all sounds like a big conspiracy theory, but hey, crazier things have happened.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

as far as i can tell, and maybe UVAO can shed more light on it. The executive orders that pretty much all presidents use and have used, are only directions for how departments handle or process things dealing with laws that are already on the books. The President can't just create a law...but he can sort of affect how the laws are interpreted and carried out by the Feds...as so far as applications and that sort of thing go...but he can't really make any "changes" to the existing laws without going through Congress...thus the whole "balance of power" thing.

 

I'm not really sure, and i don't think its really ever been tested in court...as to how far the President can push the envelope on things...which is going to make the next 4 years of changes to the Supreme Court very important....hopefully no turnover or we are all screwed.

 

You pretty much nail it, Lance. Executive Orders cannot exceed authority of the Constitution or laws already enacted by Congress. But I don't trust Obama one luck to do this properly.

[redtiger 1,740]

I get the feeling that he might make an Exrcutive Order that really pushes the limits(and maybe exceeds them) of what that power was meant to do. As UVAO said "Executive Orders cannot exceed authority of the Constitution or laws already enacted by Congress" but what exactly does that mean? Obama cannot ban citizens from owning firearms in general but can he ban certain types of firearms? Theres alot of grey area there to be left to interperation.

 

If he does that I truly believe some members of the House will push for Impeachment. I personaly dont want to see that happen, its not good for the country. I would like to see a committee put together to look into the factors behind why these individuals committ these mas killings and how to prevent them from happening. Then advise congess on what steps should be taken to prevent these events from happening in the future. Thats the way this government was intended to work.

[ISOaPBR 15]

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

11. Nominate an ATF director.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to developinnovative technologies.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

[bucfan64 307]

Reasons not to implement ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

1. The Constitution

[BigBlueAlum 12]

Are they going to allow you to keep what you already have or will it be a possession of assault rifles and high cap magazines is illegal?

 

I'm all for some of the changes as far as keeping guns out of mental patients hands and i think a background check should be done on all sales private or public...of any kind...you should have to take it to a dealer and let them handle the paperwork for a fee or whatever...I just think that makes more sense....as i said before i know a few people myself who have no business owning a gun and I'd hate to think they could just trade for one and no one even know they had it...so i'm all for some things needing to be changed.

 

I think banning assault rifles is kinda pointless though....not going to really solve any problems with that.

 

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the executive orders didn't include an assault rifle ban or a ban on high capacity magazines, right? He only proposed legislation that would then have to be passed by the house and senate before it would become law.

 

As for the executive orders that he did issue and can be seen above in ISOaPBR's post, I don't see any of them that oversteps the bounds of the constitution.

 

Please enlighten me, bucfan.

[parsons 178]

Reasons not to implement ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

1. The Constitution

 

What's listed above doesn't even come close to what I'm showing below...

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-04/washington-d-c-assault-weapons-ban-constitutional-appeals-court-rules.html

 

Washington, D.C. Assault Weapons Ban Constitutional, Appeals Court Rules

By Tom Schoenberg - Oct 4, 2011 2:22 PM ET Washington, D.C.’s ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines doesn’t violate the constitutional rights of residents in the U.S. capital, a federal appeals court ruled.

 

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington today also upheld registration requirements for handguns put in place after a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2008 ended the city’s almost total ban on firearms. The three-judge panel ordered a lower court to further review other aspects of Washington’s gun control law, such as its limits on multiple purchases.

 

“The District has carried its burden of showing a substantial relationship between the prohibition of both semi- automatic rifles and magazines holding more than 10 rounds, and the objectives of protecting police officers and controlling crime,” Judge Douglas Ginsburg wrote in the 2-1 ruling.

 

The challenge to the restrictions was brought by Dick Heller, the plaintiff in the 2008 Supreme Court case, who argued that the District of Columbia’s gun laws are so burdensome as to violate the Constitution’s right to bear arms. The rules are inconsistent with high court rulings, including Heller’s earlier case, he said in court papers.

 

Fingerprinted and Photographed

 

Under the statute, residents who want to keep guns at home must be fingerprinted and photographed by the police, provide a work history and describe their intended use of the weapon. Firearms have to be registered every three years. Guns defined by the city as assault weapons are banned.

 

Judge Brett Kavanaugh dissented, saying he would have thrown out the ban on assault weapons and the registration requirements.

 

“This case concerns semi-automatic rifles,” Kavanaugh wrote. “It would strain logic and common sense to conclude that the Second Amendment protects semi-automatic handguns but does not protect semi-automatic rifles.”

 

Ginsburg said the court only looked at semi-automatic rifles qualifying as an assault weapon under the law because Heller and the other plaintiffs didn’t attempt to register a semi-automatic pistol or shotgun.

 

Heller’s lawyer, Stephen Halbrook, told the three-judge panel during arguments in November that district’s gun regulations are “the most radically restrictive” in the country. Halbrook didn’t immediately respond to a telephone message seeking comment on today’s ruling.

 

Work History

 

Washington also requires residents who want to keep a gun at home to provide a five-year work history and state their intended use of the weapon. Applicants must allow police to run ballistic tests on each gun they register. Magazines that hold more than 10 bullets are banned.

 

The solicitor general for the District of Columbia, Todd Kim, said during oral argument that the city has the authority to keep tabs on who owns guns within its borders and to keep out certain types of weapons. Kim had no immediate comment on the ruling.

 

The appeal panel approved what it called basic requirements for handguns, such as providing the city with name, age, occupation, date of sale and residence. Ginsburg said any registration requirements related to “long guns” and “novel” requirements for handguns, such as those requiring re- registration of handguns every three years and requiring the gun owner be fingerprinted and photographed, were sent back to the lower court judge for additional review.

 

Heller filed the current challenge in July 2008, just 12 days after Washington lawmakers passed emergency legislation to comply with the high court ruling in his earlier case. A federal trial judge dismissed the new case in March 2010 after finding that the city’s regulations were an appropriate balance between public safety and an individual’s right to own a gun.

 

The case is Heller v. District of Columbia, 10-07036, U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. Circuit (Washington).

Edited January 17, 2013 by parsons

[Lance 228]

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

11. Nominate an ATF director.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to developinnovative technologies.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

 

What's you guys take on this stuff? I don't really see anything I don't like here? Maybe I'm missing something?

 

I can see this is the start of a bigger fight coming to Congress, but these don't seem like a bad idea to me?

[BigBlueAlum 12]

What's you guys take on this stuff? I don't really see anything I don't like here? Maybe I'm missing something?

 

I can see this is the start of a bigger fight coming to Congress, but these don't seem like a bad idea to me?

 

That was pretty much my thoughts.

[deuceswild 15]

I read all 23 things and didn't see the word "GOD" one time.

 

Taking God out of guns is not what we need!

[HurricaneWarning 212]

And now Texas and Kentucky are presenting statutes to make Obama's new gun laws and executive orders null and void in their states.

 

I always did like Texas.

[Lance 228]

I read all 23 things and didn't see the word "GOD" one time.

 

Taking God out of guns is not what we need!

 

why would you need GOD in anything that has to do with Executive Orders? or guns?

[parsons 178]

why would you need GOD in anything that has to do with Executive Orders? or guns?

 

because deuceswild converted to conservatism on 11/7/2012.

[HurricaneWarning 212]

because deuceswild converted to conservatism on 11/7/2012.

 

He says he did, we all know better.

[redtiger 1,740]

What's you guys take on this stuff? I don't really see anything I don't like here? Maybe I'm missing something?

 

I can see this is the start of a bigger fight coming to Congress, but these don't seem like a bad idea to me?

 

Im on board with all of it.

[BigBlueAlum 12]

because deuceswild converted to conservatism on 11/7/2012.

 

Nah, he converted to republicanism...there is a big difference between the two.

[parsons 178]

He says he did, we all know better.

 

Guess I should have placed some type of sarcasm sign at the end of that sentence....

[ISOaPBR 15]

What's you guys take on this stuff? I don't really see anything I don't like here? Maybe I'm missing something?

 

I can see this is the start of a bigger fight coming to Congress, but these don't seem like a bad idea to me?

 

Mostly pretty tame stuff, a lot of it just plain common sense, seems to me. He could have started and stopped with No. 18 - resource officers - to prevent another Sandy Hook.

I don't like 16 and 17 and the possibility of a snitch network, with doctors asking about stuff like guns. A poster on another board had the following take on it...

Dr. Redcoat: So, General Washington, do you own any guns?

Washington: F*** off

Dr. Redcoat: Note to self...the general seems to have anger issues, possible antisocial behavior. Should be reported as such to proper authorities.

 

Real change in laws will be met with real resistance, on both sides. BO knows that. Victor Davis Hanson has a good piece over at PJMedia about BO's second term, which touches on this. He expects BO to play the urbane, educated liberal against what will be portrayed as the redneck gun-toter. Class warfare just like his 2012 campaign.

[HurricaneWarning 212]

Guess I should have placed some type of sarcasm sign at the end of that sentence....

 

Or maybe a different sign.

[V-Cats 472]

Question is, if they start coming around taking guns, how well will that be enacted/enforced in this area? People talk a big fight about if the government comes to take their guns but who'd actually defend their turf?