Semi Autos to be an NFA item.

[Ted]

And? Impeachment is as far as congress goes, it is their responsibility to start the process, just like with Clinton.

No. A prosecution that puts these individuals into prison is what is required.

One cannot fulfill the duties of the office whence incarcerated, thus a disability exists to execute the duties of their office.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

No. A prosecution that puts these individuals into prison is what is required.

One cannot fulfill the duties of the office whence incarcerated, thus a disability exists to execute the duties of their office.

Right, I was referring to congress' impeachment process specifically, I was not trying to start a discussion of the requirements to remove a president. I'm saying congress should start throwing their weight around (in the right direction of course) and put the executive branch in their place for once.

 

[Ted]

Right, I was referring to congress' impeachment process specifically, I was not trying to start a discussion of the requirements to remove a president. I'm saying congress should start throwing their weight around (in the right direction of course) and put the executive branch in their place for once.

I understand what you are stating, but my position is that an impeachment proceeding without the ability of the Senate to convict, is an exercise in futility.

Best to just pursue a criminal prosecution and utilize 25A, in the case of POTUS.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I understand what you are stating, but my position is that an impeachment proceeding without the ability of the Senate to convict, is an exercise in futility.

Best to just pursue a criminal prosecution and utilize 25A, in the case of POTUS.

 

[ryan3030]

What in the world do you guys need more than 1 round for?

We won our country's first few wars with single shot rifles!

 

[thebishopp]

Bishopp, I'm not saying your argument is invalid nor the reasoning behind it. Those are the only points you seem to be making to me.

Show me a LEGAL precedent for a bureaucratic or even executive branch capability to pass a new law or change an existing one without legislative approval. BATF cannot change the designation or definitions of firearms regulated by the NFA. For a perfect example read their pitiful reasoning behind trying to regulate pistols with a forward vertical grip as AOWs. They say that because the weapon "no longer is designed to be fired from one hand it does not meet the definition of a handgun and therefore falls under the designation of AOW and regulated by the ATF."

Why would they have to quote the definitions written by CONGRESS in the original 1934 NFA if they could make up regulations on the spot? In the story it acts like the designation of the "street sweeper" was precedent but it has a bore over .50 caliber and did not meet the sporting clause laid out by the 1934 NFA and enhanced by the 1968 GCA for importation and regulation of destructive devices. They did NOT make a new designation nor regulate it because it was a common tool of criminals.

The wait times associated with NFA registration does not matter to Congress or the SCOTUS because of a SCOTUS decision "Miller vs USA" where they deemed a SBS as a weapon not fit for military combat and therefore not protected by the 2A.

Why no one has used that decision lately to argue that ALL NFA weapons are "suitable for military combat" by using examples in our current military is beyond me.

I don't think I am in disagreement with you. I am not saying that they can just "make up" new definition or add semi-autos to the list without going through the process.

What I am saying is that going through the process would not be as hard as people seem to think it is. They don't need to make up regulations on the spot, they ground work has already been laid out in the reasoning for passing the original NFA.

All it's going to take is enough public outrage over a "mass shooting" using a semi-auto and they could easily add semi-autos to the list.

The fact is that the original NFA is BS and yet it was passed. Even SCOTUS ruled it Constitutional (with the changes about registration).

Machine guns have long been used in the military, so have short barreled weapons and yes even the occasional suppressed weapon and yet it still passed. While I can only speculate why no one has used this argument to get the NFA repealed, I would say because they know the full weight of the government would be behind stopping such a thing from happening.

 

[gvsugod]

yeah right, the President would be impeached and removed inside of a week if he pulled some stunt like this.

He has already bypassed congress on other issues with no repercussions, why would this be any different?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

I don't think I am in disagreement with you. I am not saying that they can just "make up" new definition or add semi-autos to the list without going through the process.

What I am saying is that going through the process would not be as hard as people seem to think it is. They don't need to make up regulations on the spot, they ground work has already been laid out in the reasoning for passing the original NFA.

All it's going to take is enough public outrage over a "mass shooting" using a semi-auto and they could easily add semi-autos to the list.

The fact is that the original NFA is BS and yet it was passed. Even SCOTUS ruled it Constitutional (with the changes about registration).

Machine guns have long been used in the military, so have short barreled weapons and yes even the occasional suppressed weapon and yet it still passed. While I can only speculate why no one has used this argument to get the NFA repealed, I would say because they know the full weight of the government would be behind stopping such a thing from happening.

 

[Raskolnikov]

This type of thing surely could happen, but it won't with just one stroke of a pen. It will take many--and will be done slowly.

 

[Liberty's Teeth]

By whom?

By the millions of folks surrounding the Capitol "waiting to hand over their loaded semi-automatic weapons to the government"

 

[jgreiner]

I don't doubt that BHO would do this.

The only thing is, to process the MILLIONS of semi-automatic firearms in this country would take MANY years.

Even with a 100% cooperative public.

Naw...i think many millions of them would rather rapidly become re-located to DC if this is to happen. Along with their POed owners.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Naw...i think many millions of them would rather rapidly become re-located to DC if this is to happen. Along with their POed owners.

Thousands maybe, hundreds more likely. Remember many gunowners like Establishment principles and almost all gunowners have jobs to go to.

 

[Lobb40118]

Do you think the NFA rules will ever go away and the 2nd amendment actually not be infringed?

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Do you think the NFA rules will ever go away and the 2nd amendment actually not be infringed?

We just made Illinois recognize the right to carry a firearm in public for personal protection as granted by the 2A.

Yes I do, and perhaps within a few years.

 

[JettaKnight]

Do you think the NFA rules will ever go away and the 2nd amendment actually not be infringed?

Quite possibly. As the popularity of noise suppressors rises and more and more people see the value in them to society as a whole (as many European countries have) I can see an end to the regulation of those devices. I'll make the argument that it's an unfair tax and endangers the hearing of the poor w/o the mean to procure such an item.

Plus, why should I have to damage my hearing in a home SD shooting? I mean, paying for carpet cleaning is enough hassle.

SBRs and full auto - not holding my breath.

 

[Titanium_Frost]

SBRs and full auto - not holding my breath.

In Miller the argument the SCOTUS used to uphold the regulation of SBS's was that they were not a legitimate military weapon protected by the 2A.

I believe there is more to it than that but it stands to reason that with our military using every type of NFA item on a regular basis and now that the 2A has been expanded to include personal defense in public it is only a matter of time before any regulation regarding the inability to possess and carry arms will be struck down.

The NFA is specifically designed to do so, not just to tax the populace and the ATF readily admits it on its website.

 

[VeteranUSN]

Naw...i think many millions of them would rather rapidly become re-located to DC if this is to happen. Along with their POed owners.

I love my country and serve in the military but if this happened.... Many things would go badly for those who tried to enforce this upon me.

 

[Movealongmovealong]

Thanks Obama, we could all be criminals with the stroke of the pen.

Obama to bypass congress to ban semiautomatic firearms, warns expert - National Law Enforcement | Examiner.com

You need to adjust the alignment of your tinfoil hat... the reception is getting fuzzy.

 

[Spanky46151]

Autocracy...It's what's for dinner.

 

[bloodandgutsmurphy]

I bet all of my guns would be lost in a tragic boating accident before a ban came into effect