What could actually happen?

[CavMedic]

Let's say Hilary wins, and in week 1 she, by exec. order, bans all Semi-Auto military style weapons(I know, but they love that phrase)from being owned, sold or transfered. Does that give authorites free reign over searches or do they still have to get warrants and all that? How many local authorities do we think will comply? If they don't, does she order the activation of Nat. Guard to confiscate a la Katrina?

 

[SteveM4A1]

That won't happen, because the President doesn't have the authority to do it. What would be more effective for her, and what she will do, is nominate anti-constitutional justices for the Supreme Court. What we know as the 2nd Amendment will change forever.

 

[CavMedic]

My thinking is that under a National Security Directive which is a form of exec. order she could do it. And it would carry the weight of law.

 

[ATM]

My thinking is that under a National Security Directive which is a form of exec. order she could do it. And it would carry the weight of law.

The weight of (a) law is a tricky thing to measure, there are several metrics at play beyond simply the strength of the force available and willing to coerce compliance.

 

[JTScribe]

That won't happen, because the President doesn't have the authority to do it. What would be more effective for her, and what she will do, is nominate anti-constitutional justices for the Supreme Court. What we know as the 2nd Amendment will change forever.

Pen and a phone?

 

[Light]

Don't see why she couldn't do it via executive order, but in a Republican Congress majority I don't believe it would stay.

Regardless search laws would stay the same.

It would probably be easier for her to add "Assault Weapons" to the NFA.

 

[edporch]

With a government that ignores the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and gets more lawless every day, don't assume they can't do anything!

 

[BogWalker]

If they thought it could be done Obama would have done it already.

Most likely assault on firearms ownership is universal background checks, followed by universal registration, followed by incremental confiscation.

Ammunition taxes, purchase limits, magazine capacity limits, and assault weapons bans are also all very likely as well.

If we lose the presidency we lose the Supreme Court. We must hold Congress or we hold no chance.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

It won't happen anything like that.

It has to happen slowly, over a few more generations. And it will, but not in our lifetime.

Just have to wonder what kind of politician... ideologue... makes that a life goal. Something they'll never see, something that won't matter when they've already grown old and died.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

​She can't do it by executive order.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Let's think about it for a second. If this could be done by Executive Order, why wouldn't Obama have done it? He's on his way out, zero concern for re-election, and made gun control a major part of his platform.

 

[Hoosierkav]

I have to wonder how SCOTUS will destroy the second amendment--isn't there enough case law/precedents that would need to be "overturned" by specific lawsuits, which each have to make their ways through the system? It isn't as if the federal government can walk in to the court in October and say "We want to outlaw X, Y, and Z", right?

Further, since the Senate controls the selection of the justices, to me, they hold the power, not just the Executive branch.

 

[SteveM4A1]

I have to wonder how SCOTUS will destroy the second amendment--isn't there enough case law/precedents that would need to be "overturned" by specific lawsuits, which each have to make their ways through the system? It isn't as if the federal government can walk in to the court in October and say "We want to outlaw X, Y, and Z", right?

Further, since the Senate controls the selection of the justices, to me, they hold the power, not just the Executive branch.

Sure, but when you have a sitting justice (RBG) who speaks about wanting to overturn Heller, do you really think case law or prior Supreme Court decisions matter? They will do what they want, with little care for the Constitution or country.

Do you really think a Republican controlled Senate can keep nomination votes from happening for years?

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I have to wonder how SCOTUS will destroy the second amendment--isn't there enough case law/precedents that would need to be "overturned" by specific lawsuits, which each have to make their ways through the system? It isn't as if the federal government can walk in to the court in October and say "We want to outlaw X, Y, and Z", right?

Further, since the Senate controls the selection of the justices, to me, they hold the power, not just the Executive branch.

Not really. All it would take is one case where the court finds that it had decided wrongly in Heller and that the 2nd doesn't cover an individual right.

 

[oldpink]

She won't need to do anything of the sort.
All she needs to do (and you can bet your entire gun safe full) is appoint the fifth hardcore leftist SCOTUS justice, then wait for the inevitable anti-gun politician -- probably one of Bloomturd's robots, most likely a mayor -- bring forth a case that effectively revisits Heller.
We will then have the unprecedented constitutional crisis of SCOTUS declaring that an entire amendment to the formerly inviolate Bill of Rights is effectively null and void.
This is not just conspiracy theorizing, as the anti-gunners openly state this is their end game.

 

[OutdoorDad]

Might want to rethink the confirmation of Obamas nominee. Far more centrist than anyone she would put forth.

 

[two70]

Might want to rethink the confirmation of Obamas nominee. Far more centrist than anyone she would put forth.

Obama's nominee is a Trojan Horse, not a centrist. Centrist judges don't exist, some liberal judges just do a better job of hiding it than others.

 

[actaeon277]

Don't see why she couldn't do it via executive order, but in a Republican Congress majority I don't believe it would stay.

Regardless search laws would stay the same.

It would probably be easier for her to add "Assault Weapons" to the NFA.

Because the President is NOT a King.
More likely what edporch says below.
And because people now think of the govt as DAD, so they're okay.

With a government that ignores the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights and gets more lawless every day, don't assume they can't do anything!

 

[Leadeye]

First thing she would try is to remove the protection that the firearms industry has to lawsuits. That makes money for her friends the trial lawyers and lets them do the dirty work of putting manufacturers and dealers through the legal meat grinder adding cost to their business and products which is passed on to us the consumer.

Always follow the money

 

[seedubs1]

If they can't outright ban the guns, they'll find some sort of back door loophole to make them either inaccessible or unusable. Either allow people to sue the manufacturer for the misdeeds of criminals and force firearms manufacturers to charge so much for them that the common man can't afford a rifle, take the ammo away, make so many cosmetic features illegal that you can't hardly design a legal firearm, require so many loopholes and legal cost to get "trained" and "licensed" that the common man again can't afford the cost/time, etc, etc, etc..... The real answer is "no more." No more erosion of our rights. No more inane legislation.

First thing she would try is to remove the protection that the firearms industry has to lawsuits. That makes money for her friends the trial lawyers and lets them do the dirty work of putting manufacturers and dealers through the legal meat grinder adding cost to their business and products which is passed on to us the consumer. Always follow the money