Kamala Harris would proclaim new gun-control measures through executive orders (presidential decrees?)

[KC5AV]

I haven’t heard her speak very often, but in the clips (not magazines) I saw yesterday, her speech sure seemed to be slurred. Is that normal for her?

[rotor]

Ms. Harris said that, if elected, she would sign an executive order mandating background checks for customers of any firearms dealer who sells more than five guns a year. The executive actions would also include more strident regulation of gun manufacturers that could result in revoked licenses or prosecution, as well as an attempt to close the loophole that allows some domestic abusers to purchase guns if their victim is an unwedded partner.

I know some people have a knee jerk reaction to anything proposed by Democrats but they're better ideas than banning bump stocks.

1. It seems reasonable to categorize somebody selling more than five guns a year as a gun dealer. Texas requires a car dealer license if you sell five or more cars in a year.

2. I have no problem with ATF enforcing current laws on manufacturers and revoking licenses for significant violations. I would hope this happens already but maybe it's more work than online sting operations for freeze plugs and solvent traps.

3. I'm not sure what she's talking about here. Somebody can be convicted of domestic violence if they're not married to their victim. If somebody has a DV conviction, they're already disqualified unless they're a protected class, and I have no problem with eliminating that loophole.

She also wants to renew assault weapon ban. We had that for 10 years and how did that work out?

[bblhd672]

Ms. Harris said that, if elected, she would sign an executive order mandating background checks for customers of any firearms dealer who sells more than five guns a year. The executive actions would also include more strident regulation of gun manufacturers that could result in revoked licenses or prosecution, as well as an attempt to close the loophole that allows some domestic abusers to purchase guns if their victim is an unwedded partner.

I know some people have a knee jerk reaction to anything proposed by Democrats but they're better ideas than banning bump stocks.

1. It seems reasonable to categorize somebody selling more than five guns a year as a gun dealer. Texas requires a car dealer license if you sell five or more cars in a year.

2. I have no problem with ATF enforcing current laws on manufacturers and revoking licenses for significant violations. I would hope this happens already but maybe it's more work than online sting operations for freeze plugs and solvent traps.

3. I'm not sure what she's talking about here. Somebody can be convicted of domestic violence if they're not married to their victim. If somebody has a DV conviction, they're already disqualified unless they're a protected class, and I have no problem with eliminating that loophole.

I couldn't disagree more with your statement. There is NO, ZERO, NADA gun control proposals that are good ideas. They (democrats, socialists, many republicans) WANT incrementalism and every inch you cede with agreement to their agenda emboldens them to take a mile.

[DynamicDan]

Ms. Harris said that, if elected, she would sign an executive order mandating background checks for customers of any firearms dealer who sells more than five guns a year. The executive actions would also include more strident regulation of gun manufacturers that could result in revoked licenses or prosecution, as well as an attempt to close the loophole that allows some domestic abusers to purchase guns if their victim is an unwedded partner.

I know some people have a knee jerk reaction to anything proposed by Democrats but they're better ideas than banning bump stocks.

1. It seems reasonable to categorize somebody selling more than five guns a year as a gun dealer. Texas requires a car dealer license if you sell five or more cars in a year.

2. I have no problem with ATF enforcing current laws on manufacturers and revoking licenses for significant violations. I would hope this happens already but maybe it's more work than online sting operations for freeze plugs and solvent traps.

3. I'm not sure what she's talking about here. Somebody can be convicted of domestic violence if they're not married to their victim. If somebody has a DV conviction, they're already disqualified unless they're a protected class, and I have no problem with eliminating that loophole.

I disagree, there is already way too much gun control. Since guns aren't the problem pushing more gun control only affects people who already follow the law.

[chasfm11]

I couldn't disagree more with your statement. There is NO, ZERO, NADA gun control proposals that are good ideas. They (democrats, socialists, many republicans) WANT incrementalism and every inch you cede with agreement to their agenda emboldens them to take a mile.

In parallel, Ms. Harris sided with Senator Sanders about "restoring" the right of prisoners to vote. Crazy Bernie went so far as to suggest that surviving Tsarnaev brother should be allowed to vote from prison. Enough already! Indiscriminately killing children and maiming adults doesn't deprive you of your rights as a citizen but merely exercising the 2nd Amendment does? Not one more darned inch, not one!

[Jusme]

I couldn't disagree more with your statement. There is NO, ZERO, NADA gun control proposals that are good ideas. They (democrats, socialists, many republicans) WANT incrementalism and every inch you cede with agreement to their agenda emboldens them to take a mile.

In parallel, Ms. Harris sided with Senator Sanders about "restoring" the right of prisoners to vote. Crazy Bernie went so far as to suggest that surviving Tsarnaev brother should be allowed to vote from prison. Enough already! Indiscriminately killing children and maiming adults doesn't deprive you of your rights as a citizen but merely exercising the 2nd Amendment does? Not one more darned inch, not one!

AMEN!!

They try to package their proposals as "common sense" but when simply want to strip away our rights one at a time. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Seems to be a minor challenge they have to overcome. They start by selecting groups of people who can't own guns, then move to the type of guns people can own, how many they can own, how much ammo they can purchase, keep and load at one time. They then want to make sure they have a record of those who own guns, so that when they get laws passed to confiscate them they know where to go.
NO MORE!!
Not one single gun restriction, has prevented one single gun crime.

But I do hope that the left puts gun confiscation at the front of their platform. Since Trump has taken office, our side has been fairly quiet. They banned bump stocks and no one rioted, they passed red flag laws in some States, and we haven't risen up in defiance. But we are the sleeping giant. I can't speak for every gun owner, but I will not sit quietly, while these Yahoo's run roughshod over us any longer. JMHO

[MaduroBU]

The enemy of incrementalism isn't blanket opposition, it's a firm stance. In a democracy, a firm stance that all gun control is wrong is unsustainable and has no historical precedent.

The Democrats' incrementalism on gun control must be consistently pointed out as a lie. Their current assault weapons fetish is a direct response to their failure to ban handguns. The ongoing need is an honest, consistent message, which for years has been "actually enforce the laws that we already have".

In this case, Harris's statement is 2 parts "What the NRA has been saying for decades", and one part "bring back a law that everyone agreed was useless".

This is inconsistency on her part, and needs to be pointed out in contrast to a very consistent message by the NRA. "Kamala Harris parrots NRA in effort to appear mainstream on guns" is the headline we want, and more importantly the ACCURATE headline.

[apostate]

I haven’t heard her speak very often, but in the clips (not magazines) I saw yesterday, her speech sure seemed to be slurred. Is that normal for her?

Some people blame her affair with Willie Brown.

[jason812]

I haven’t heard her speak very often, but in the clips (not magazines) I saw yesterday, her speech sure seemed to be slurred. Is that normal for her?

She's a politician in DC. She's drunk by 10am.

Edit to add: I noticed her slurred speech when they played a clip of her on the radio. She sounded drunk to me, or stupid. Maybe drunk and stupid

[joe817]

AMEN!! They try to package their proposals as "common sense" but when simply want to strip away our rights one at a time. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Seems to be a minor challenge they have to overcome. They start by selecting groups of people who can't own guns, then move to the type of guns people can own, how many they can own, how much ammo they can purchase, keep and load at one time. They then want to make sure they have a record of those who own guns, so that when they get laws passed to confiscate them they know where to go.
NO MORE!!
Not one single gun restriction, has prevented one single gun crime.

But I do hope that the left puts gun confiscation at the front of their platform. Since Trump has taken office, our side has been fairly quiet. They banned bump stocks and no one rioted, they passed red flag laws in some States, and we haven't risen up in defiance. But we are the sleeping giant. I can't speak for every gun owner, but I will not sit quietly, while these Yahoo's run roughshod over us any longer. JMHO

Well put Jusme! I TOTALLY Agree! We cannot any longer sit quietly sit on the sidelines, observing, what is happening before us, and letting our God Given Rights be slowly eroded right before our eyes! The thing we have to do is contact our legislators and speak out about this outrage that is brought upon us and DEMAND that our Second Amendment Rights be preserved, as our Founding Fathers envisioned.

"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"!

Please let us not bring to the point where we are forced into saying: "COME AND TAKE IT!"

[Liberty]

Ms. Harris said that, if elected, she would sign an executive order mandating background checks for customers of any firearms dealer who sells more than five guns a year. The executive actions would also include more strident regulation of gun manufacturers that could result in revoked licenses or prosecution, as well as an attempt to close the loophole that allows some domestic abusers to purchase guns if their victim is an unwedded partner.

I know some people have a knee jerk reaction to anything proposed by Democrats but they're better ideas than banning bump stocks.

1. It seems reasonable to categorize somebody selling more than five guns a year as a gun dealer. Texas requires a car dealer license if you sell five or more cars in a year.

2. I have no problem with ATF enforcing current laws on manufacturers and revoking licenses for significant violations. I would hope this happens already but maybe it's more work than online sting operations for freeze plugs and solvent traps.

3. I'm not sure what she's talking about here. Somebody can be convicted of domestic violence if they're not married to their victim. If somebody has a DV conviction, they're already disqualified unless they're a protected class, and I have no problem with eliminating that loophole.

She also mentioned banning High Capacity Magazines.
1: I always thought that the unlicensed volume dealer was unfair competition to Local Gun Shops. But families should be able to dispose of their weapons without lots of hinderance and red tape. Dealers are notorious for low balled prices.
2: I think she is also talking about prison time for clerical errors.
3: Domestic Violence charges is one of the most abused charges there is. Often the violence is just name calling, imagined or just trumped up, A lifetime ban of a basic civil right, on what is often just a misdemeanor charge is pretty harsh.

The problem with socialists if they scream their idiocracy out long and loud enough, it can sound pretty mainsteam.

[KLB]

The enemy of incrementalism isn't blanket opposition, it's a firm stance. In a democracy, a firm stance that all gun control is wrong is unsustainable and has no historical precedent.

An unpopular opinion here, but you're right.

[K.Mooneyham]

Ms. Harris said that, if elected, she would sign an executive order mandating background checks for customers of any firearms dealer who sells more than five guns a year. The executive actions would also include more strident regulation of gun manufacturers that could result in revoked licenses or prosecution, as well as an attempt to close the loophole that allows some domestic abusers to purchase guns if their victim is an unwedded partner.

I know some people have a knee jerk reaction to anything proposed by Democrats but they're better ideas than banning bump stocks.

1. It seems reasonable to categorize somebody selling more than five guns a year as a gun dealer. Texas requires a car dealer license if you sell five or more cars in a year.

2. I have no problem with ATF enforcing current laws on manufacturers and revoking licenses for significant violations. I would hope this happens already but maybe it's more work than online sting operations for freeze plugs and solvent traps.

3. I'm not sure what she's talking about here. Somebody can be convicted of domestic violence if they're not married to their victim. If somebody has a DV conviction, they're already disqualified unless they're a protected class, and I have no problem with eliminating that loophole.

She also mentioned banning High Capacity Magazines.
1: I always thought that the unlicensed volume dealer was unfair competition to Local Gun Shops. But families should be able to dispose of their weapons without lots of hinderance and red tape. Dealers are notorious for low balled prices.
2: I think she is also talking about prison time for clerical errors.
3: Domestic Violence charges is one of the most abused charges there is. Often the violence is just name calling, imagined or just trumped up, A lifetime ban of a basic civil right, on what is often just a misdemeanor charge is pretty harsh.

The problem with socialists if they scream their idiocracy out long and loud enough, it can sound pretty mainsteam.

Regarding the red-highlighted item only, I do believe that is at least one of the reasons no number has been placed on how many firearms can be sold and still not be considered "in the business of". Many estate sales include private sales of firearms collections. It is pretty much a one-time thing, even though it may include a sizeable number of firearms. People should NOT be forced to sell those firearms through a dealer, it is private property, and as long as the firearms aren't knowingly being sold to prohibited persons, then that it all that matters.

Regarding the blue-highlighted item only, wasn't that one of the excesses of the GCA of 1968 (bad law), which were supposed to be reeled in by the FOPA of 1986 (overall good law), but were still ignored by the Clintonian regime to shut down FLLs? I'm pretty sure it was...and we don't need to go back to that garbage.

[Soccerdad1995]

As noted up thread, Bernie recently advocated for every citizen to have the right to vote, on the basis that voting is fundamental to a democracy. I'll put aside for a second his mistaken notion that the United States is, or was ever intended to be a democracy, other than to note that he has a basic ignorance about our system of government.

I do agree with Sanders that voting is fundamental to a republic, such as the US. And I also believe that the RKBA is at least equally fundamental to having a free and effective republic. No doubt that Bernie might disagree with that point. As noted above he is a bit ignorant about how our government works, after all.

Where I disagree with Sanders is that I believe both of these rights, as well as others, do need to be curtailed in certain, very limited, circumstances. Commission of a violent crime is one of those circumstances. I would simplify this by just tieing the RKBA to the right to vote. Call it the Voter Carry Law. Your voter registration card would effectively become your LTC. Lose one right, and you lose the other. Period.

[The Annoyed Man]

This is why I’ve been so frustrated with Trump’s use of executive power. I know that he hasn’t used it as much as other presidents, but he has used them in more controversial decisions. Thus setting precedent for the next liberal president to order away the 2nd amendment. In the end it doesn’t matter, none of my guns will leave my possession.

Fixed it for you. If I WANT to leave my house with one (or all) of my guns, I’m GOING to leave my house with one (or all) of my guns.....regardless of what Kamala Harris says or does.

Fixed it for you

Bazinga!