How easy would it be?

[Stradawhovious]

In reference to all of the "Obama is going to take away our guns" posts, in the event that he actually gets elected....... How easy, exactly, would it be for him to instagate a door to door gun collection from the law abiding? It seems that in light of the recent Supreme Court decision extending the 2A rights to the individual that it would be difficult for him to do so. Is this something that we should back burner? Or Come Doomsday in November should we consider selling all of our firearms at the next gun show as to not give him the satisfaction? Granted I wouldnt' really run out and do that.... but you get the drift.

Could some of the more legal saavy folk here weigh in on this?

[David]

Well, he'd have the Senate and House on his side, and he's got four or eight years to appoint anti gun Supremes. I'd expect to see anti gun legislation getting passed during his term, but I doubt it would be of the gun-grabbing variety. More like the assault weapons ban that sunsetted a while back.

I'd also expect to see some anti gun rulemaking during his term(s). He can't pass laws on his own, but his administration could make rules about how the BATFE operates, how FFLs are handled, and all of that stuff. Rulemaking wouldn't ban a class of firearms, but it might result in permits being delayed or denied, and other fun stuff.

Definitely bad for us if he gets elected. How much, though, remains to be seen. Let's just hope a few justices can hold out!

[nyffman]

Besides being a rubber stamp on whatever an antigun, Democrat congress dreams up, there's always the executive order thing.

[hammAR]

How about a $10,000 tax stamp to purchase a firearm, any firearm.......................
or $10.00 per cartridge for ammunition.......
.....there are many, many, many ways to eliminate (outlaw) firearms...................

THE FIVE YEAR BRADY/OBAMA PLAN:

1. National Licensing of all handgun purchases.

2. Licenses for Rifle and Shotgun owners.

3. State Licenses for ownership of firearms.

4. Arsenal Licenses (5 guns and 250 rounds of ammunition).

5. Arsenal License Fees (at least $300.00, with a cap of $1,000.00).

6. Limits on Arsenal Licensing (None in counties with populations of more than 200,000).

7. Requirement of Federally Approved Storage Safes for all guns.

8. Inspection License. (Gun safe licenses, yearly fee for spot inspections).

9. Ban on Manufacturing in counties with a population of more than 200,000.

10. Banning all military style firearms.

11. Banning Machine Gun Parts or parts which can be used in a Machine gun.

12. Banning the carrying a firearm anywhere but home or target range or in
transit from one to the other.

13. Banning replacement parts (manufacturing, sale, possession, transfer,
installation) except barrel, trigger group.

14. Elimination of the Curio Relic list.

15. Control of Ammunition belonging to Certain Surplus Firearms. (7.62x54R and .303).

16. Eventual Ban of Handgun Possession.

17. Banning of Any ammo that fits military guns (post 1945).

18. Banning of any quantity of smokeless powder or black powder which
would constitute more than the equivalent of 100 rounds of ammunition.

19. Ban the possession of explosive powders of more than 1 kg. at any one time.

20. Banning of High Powered Ammo or Wounding ammo.

21. A National License for Ammunition.

22. Banning or strict licensing of all re-loading components.

23. National Registration of ammunition or ammo buyers.

24. Requirements of special storage safe for ammunition and licensing.

25. Restricting Gun Ranges to counties with populations less than 200,000.

26. Special Licensing of ranges.

27. Special Range Tax to visitors. ($85.00 per visit per person).

28. Waiting period for rentals on pistol ranges.

29. Banning Gun Shows.

30. Banning of military reenactments.

31. Ban of all magazines/clips holding over 6 bullets.

32. Elimination of the Dept. of Civilian Marksmanship.

33. Ban on all realistic replica and toy guns (including 'air soft' and paintball).

34. The right of gun-violence victims to sue, with financial assistance from
government programs, the gun manufacturers.

35. Taxes on dealers and licenses to offset medical costs to society.

36. The eventual ban on all semi-automatics regardless of when made or caliber.

[David]

In theory, yes, but he'd have to make a case for the "clear and present danger" bit, and I don't think people would buy it. Incremental gun laws are one thing, but a wholesale ban, with teams of people out confiscating guns, anytime soon, just plain won't happen.

[Stradawhovious]

two quick things.......

1. it's my understanding that the Supreme Court is appointed for life, how many of them are planning on retireing in the next 4, or God forbid, 8 years, and is that even a matter of public record?

2. Please don't take this the wrong way hammAR, since your points are very valid, and I am aware that all of the things you have outlined are very real threats to us and necessary to repeat..... I don't see anything that address my original question of entry and blatent confiscation of all firearms.... That is the curiosity behind my original post.

Keep in mind that this is no more than blatent curiosity on my part, and I appreciate all discussion. I believe it is good for all of us to discuss and prepare for all eventualities. It seems to me that anyone with this mentality running for the presidential seal is obviously scared to death of their Constituants, and that bothers me to no end.

[nyffman]

Well, maybe we should brush up on our history a little bit. I know there are some differences now, but does anyone remember what Slick Willie and Janet Reno had done to the Branch Davidians?

[nyffman]

Or Randy Weaver. I know there were reports of threats against Reagan and ties to White Supremecist groups, but it seem like they used allegations of his possesion of firearms to make him a real bad guy.

[hammAR]

Please don't take this the wrong way hammAR, since your points are very valid, and I am aware that all of the things you have outlined are very real threats to us and necessary to repeat..... I don't see anything that address my original question of entry and blatent confiscation of all firearms.... That is the curiosity behind my original post.

I didn't take it wrong, but I do think that the list will be executed. To more precisely answer you question,in my ever so humble opinion, yes I do think that many LEO level types would if given the opportunity - look at Ruby Ridge, Waco, New Orleans, etc. etc. etc....... Would the military, I do not think that the active duty and recent veterans would participate, even if ordered. Now would they try it, if they thought that they could get away with it and that there would not be a major armed revolution....possibly......but then again I can not hold my breath too long anymore..........

[rucker]

Go to the GOA website and look at Obama's voting record. The only thing he didn't vote for was a bill about allowing the government to confiscate weapons during a natural disaster like during Katrina.

I'm not defending him but I think that's pretty relevant to this topic....

[nyffman]

But if those who will own the congress decide that's what they want, will he stand up to them. Probably not. I think he's owned by the same people.

[David]

No Supreme Court justice has announced an intention to retire soon, but several are expected to during the next eight years, just due to age and things they've said. Keep in mind the average age on the court is 68. Unfortunately, more of them are conservative than liberal.

And regarding all of the isolated but tragic events (Weaver, Waco, etc.), they had nothing to do with passing sweeping laws that allow for the confiscation of whole classes of guns from whole classes of people. Strad's question was limited (it seemed) to Obama's ability as president to grab guns from people soon after attaining office. Sure, it's in his head to get rid of guns, but he simply would not have the political power to accomplish it unilaterally and immediately. Will he sign laws that reduce our gun rights, and direct the promulgation of rules that do the same? Absolutely. But it will necessarily be limited in scope, will take some time, and won't come close to any kind of immediate, outright ban on all firearms.

We've had anti gun presidents and anti gun legislatures before, but there's always been a process for this stuff. An outright ban wouldn't sit well with all the pro-gun democrats in Congress out there. They may be able to vote for assault weapons bans without getting kicked out, but it would be political suicide to go all-out in one stroke.

[hammAR]

Well, King, This case is closed.

[Jeff Bergquist]

Regarding passage of any anti gun legislation, we need to remind congress of the housecleaning that occurred after passage of the '94 AWB, and hope that they don't wish to awaken the giant that is currently dozing after the pro gun gains that have happened since then.

[nyffman]

I have to disagree with David. I think there is plenty of political will in the Democrat party. If they control two branches of govt, with a possibility of taking over the judicial, they will see this as a once in a lifetime opportunity to make the kind of America they always dreamed of. As far as process, with executive orders and other perversions, they can do anything.