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

[The Annoyed Man]

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.

That’s an interesting idea, but hard to see how it could be justified if the voting age ends up being lowered to 16....which seems about to become an official addition to the Democrat platform. Mind you, I’m not against 16 year olds having an unrestricted RKBA, but I can’t see Democrats being able to reconcile the FULL rights of citizenship for 16 year olds - which necessarily includes the RKBA - EXCEPT by denying that the RKBA exists for anybody at all.

And that assumes that the 16 year old in question isn’t a convicted felon. If the dems want to give the rights of citizenship back to felons - even while they are still behind bars - that presents another inconsistency entirely.

And by the way, I am generally in favor of restoring the full rights of citizenship to ANY felon upon release, even for categories of violent crimes (crimes like 1st degree murder, rape, and kidnapping excluded, but including violence like assault, domestic abuse, and the like), so long as they do not demonstrate any recidivist tendencies upon release. In other words, lose your rights TWICE, you lose them forever. My reasoning is that, so often, charges are as likely to be scaled up during prosecution, as they are to be pled down. What results isn't necessarily JUSTICE.

People CAN reform. If they do, they should have their rights of citizenship restored once their sentence is served. Either they served their sentence, or they did not. If they DID, then justice is not served by denying them their rights for the rest of their lives. Doing so is no less barbaric than what the dems are trying to do to our gun rights, against people who have broken no laws.

We do not live in a risk free world, and liberty cannot exist where all risk has been artificially suppressed. In fact, as we know from the truth that gun control laws only control the law abiding, suppression of risk WRT firearms is purely an illusion. We are orderly people, living in a chaotic world, relying on the deception that we can impose order upon the chaos. We can only impose order on ourselves, but that does nothing to impose order on the chaos beyond the boundaries of our individual personhood. That is why restricting the rights of the law abiding, in any way shape or form, is immoral. And that is why it is immoral to restrict the rights of a convicted felon, IF he or she has dutifully served the sentence that society imposed upon them, and IF he or she has demonstrated that they are a reformed person.

OTH, if they are recidivist, then they should spend the rest of their days behind bars.... but without access to all of the luxuries currently found in modern prisons. If prison is too easy, there is no incentive for someone to fear returning to it.

[philip964]

Kamala said former illegal drug dealers should get preferential treatment for new marijuana licenses to sell.

After all they have experience.

[WildRose]

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?

They don't seem to understand that the prior ban did not take a single so called "assault rifle" that was legally owned off of the streets. All it did manage to do was drive up the price of the pre ban models.

[WildRose]

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.

That’s an interesting idea, but hard to see how it could be justified if the voting age ends up being lowered to 16....which seems about to become an official addition to the Democrat platform. Mind you, I’m not against 16 year olds having an unrestricted RKBA, but I can’t see Democrats being able to reconcile the FULL rights of citizenship for 16 year olds - which necessarily includes the RKBA - EXCEPT by denying that the RKBA exists for anybody at all.

And that assumes that the 16 year old in question isn’t a convicted felon. If the dems want to give the rights of citizenship back to felons - even while they are still behind bars - that presents another inconsistency entirely.

And by the way, I am generally in favor of restoring the full rights of citizenship to ANY felon upon release, even for categories of violent crimes (crimes like 1st degree murder, rape, and kidnapping excluded, but including violence like assault, domestic abuse, and the like), so long as they do not demonstrate any recidivist tendencies upon release. In other words, lose your rights TWICE, you lose them forever. My reasoning is that, so often, charges are as likely to be scaled up during prosecution, as they are to be pled down. What results isn't necessarily JUSTICE.

People CAN reform. If they do, they should have their rights of citizenship restored once their sentence is served. Either they served their sentence, or they did not. If they DID, then justice is not served by denying them their rights for the rest of their lives. Doing so is no less barbaric than what the dems are trying to do to our gun rights, against people who have broken no laws.

We do not live in a risk free world, and liberty cannot exist where all risk has been artificially suppressed. In fact, as we know from the truth that gun control laws only control the law abiding, suppression of risk WRT firearms is purely an illusion. We are orderly people, living in a chaotic world, relying on the deception that we can impose order upon the chaos. We can only impose order on ourselves, but that does nothing to impose order on the chaos beyond the boundaries of our individual personhood. That is why restricting the rights of the law abiding, in any way shape or form, is immoral. And that is why it is immoral to restrict the rights of a convicted felon, IF he or she has dutifully served the sentence that society imposed upon them, and IF he or she has demonstrated that they are a reformed person.

OTH, if they are recidivist, then they should spend the rest of their days behind bars.... but without access to all of the luxuries currently found in modern prisons. If prison is too easy, there is no incentive for someone to fear returning to it.

I could get behind restoring voting and firearms rights to non violent, non drug related felons but only after serving their full sentences plus an additional 7-10 years beyond that period of demonstrated living lawfully and working.

[baytownb]

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.

Ridiculous, doesn't matter if you like them or not, implementing new law such as this through an EO is unconstitutional, If you like the ideas get someone to file legislation and push for it. I am getting really sick of this whole "feed the alligator other people hoping you will be eaten last" mentality. If you haven't figured it out yet, there is no middle ground with the DemonRats. They will take everything you give them and it will never be enough until we don't have anything. Don't help them get us there. Besides, even the proposals are more than what they seem. OK say you agree with the idea of selling more than 5 guns privately before having to be a dealer. Well how do they know? They make ALL private sales illegal and force you to do paperwork and go into the system anytime you want to sell a gun to your friend or family member you have to go into the government database. So to support this idea you have to agree to ban private sales for it to work.

[baytownb]

Gee I wonder where she got that idea from? Oh yea, that's right.

[WildRose]

Gee I wonder where she got that idea from? Oh yea, that's right.

"I've got a pen and a phone". "Elections have consequences and I won".

[crazy2medic]

The fact that in 1976 the United States Congress granted the President the Power to use by Executive order money from the military budget to build roads and barriers using military personnel! That power was granted under 10 USC 284, so no a President Harris (that's scary) could not legally declare gun confiscation via Executive Power!
However legality appears to not be something the democrats consider as a barrier!

[Grumpy1993]

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.

Ridiculous, doesn't matter if you like them or not, implementing new law such as this through an EO is unconstitutional,

Like Trump's bump stock ban? Has it been overturned? Has the supreme court granted cert or a stay pending a final ruling?

1. There's already federal law requiring gun dealers to have an FFL. There's nothing stopping BATFE from making an administrative ruling "clarifying" the definition of what it means to be “engaged in the business” and need a FFL.

2. There's already federal law regarding gun manufacturers and gun dealers. Enforcement is a duty of the executive branch.

3. There's already federal law banning access to firearms by people convicted of crimes of domestic violence. (the Lautenberg Amendment)

[WildRose]

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.

Ridiculous, doesn't matter if you like them or not, implementing new law such as this through an EO is unconstitutional,

Like Trump's bump stock ban? Has it been overturned? Has the supreme court granted cert or a stay pending a final ruling?

1. There's already federal law requiring gun dealers to have an FFL. There's nothing stopping BATFE from making an administrative ruling "clarifying" the definition of what it means to be “engaged in the business” and need a FFL.

2. There's already federal law regarding gun manufacturers and gun dealers. Enforcement is a duty of the executive branch.

3. There's already federal law banning access to firearms by people convicted of crimes of domestic violence. (the Lautenberg Amendment)

Making bumpstocks illegal simply required changing a few words in a regulation already put in place under existing statutes.

[anygunanywhere]

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.

Ridiculous, doesn't matter if you like them or not, implementing new law such as this through an EO is unconstitutional,

Like Trump's bump stock ban? Has it been overturned? Has the supreme court granted cert or a stay pending a final ruling?

1. There's already federal law requiring gun dealers to have an FFL. There's nothing stopping BATFE from making an administrative ruling "clarifying" the definition of what it means to be “engaged in the business” and need a FFL.

2. There's already federal law regarding gun manufacturers and gun dealers. Enforcement is a duty of the executive branch.

3. There's already federal law banning access to firearms by people convicted of crimes of domestic violence. (the Lautenberg Amendment)

Making bumpstocks illegal simply required changing a few words in a regulation already put in place under existing statutes.

Calling bump stocks machine guns is like putting a rock in an oven and calling it a biscuit.

[WildRose]

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.

Ridiculous, doesn't matter if you like them or not, implementing new law such as this through an EO is unconstitutional,

Like Trump's bump stock ban? Has it been overturned? Has the supreme court granted cert or a stay pending a final ruling?

1. There's already federal law requiring gun dealers to have an FFL. There's nothing stopping BATFE from making an administrative ruling "clarifying" the definition of what it means to be “engaged in the business” and need a FFL.

2. There's already federal law regarding gun manufacturers and gun dealers. Enforcement is a duty of the executive branch.

3. There's already federal law banning access to firearms by people convicted of crimes of domestic violence. (the Lautenberg Amendment)

Making bumpstocks illegal simply required changing a few words in a regulation already put in place under existing statutes.

Calling bump stocks machine guns is like putting a rock in an oven and calling it a biscuit.

And? The fact is all that was required was a slight change in wording in an existing regulation already authorized under existing legislation.

I don't approve of the change, I don't approve of the NFA and think it should have been overturned long ago as a violation of the 2nd Amendment but that doesn't change the facts of what happened or how it happened.

[Grumpy1993]

Making bumpstocks illegal simply required changing a few words in a regulation already put in place under existing statutes.

Obama wasn't able to get them banned. Twice, was it? But Trump decides that's going to be his legacy for gun owners. Not getting rid of regulatory (not legislative) gun free zones, like he promised when wanted our votes, but more regulations that won't do anything to reduce violent crime.

With friends like that, who needs Kamala Harris.

[WildRose]

Making bumpstocks illegal simply required changing a few words in a regulation already put in place under existing statutes.

Obama wasn't able to get them banned. Twice, was it? But Trump decides that's going to be his legacy for gun owners. Not getting rid of regulatory (not legislative) gun free zones, like he promised when wanted our votes, but more regulations that won't do anything to reduce violent crime.

With friends like that, who needs Kamala Harris.

Obama never made any serious effort to do it, he simply wanted to use bumpstocks as yet another hammer against the gun owning community. Had he been serious about banning them he simply could have acted in the same manner by rewriting the regulation.

[Grumpy1993]

Making bumpstocks illegal simply required changing a few words in a regulation already put in place under existing statutes.

Obama wasn't able to get them banned. Twice, was it? But Trump decides that's going to be his legacy for gun owners. Not getting rid of regulatory (not legislative) gun free zones, like he promised when wanted our votes, but more regulations that won't do anything to reduce violent crime.

With friends like that, who needs Kamala Harris.

Obama never made any serious effort to do it, he simply wanted to use bumpstocks as yet another hammer against the gun owning community. Had he been serious about banning them he simply could have acted in the same manner by rewriting the regulation.

So you're saying Trump is more serious about pushing unconstitutional gun control than Obama ever was? I guess that's one explanation for the current state of affairs.