Booker's plan for gun control

[joshs]

Hillary beat Hillary. I know the NRA put a lot of money into the campaign and must claim significant variance proportion in Donald's win but that's probably not the deciding factor. Anyway, what did the money get you?

We have pretty good data that shows how NRA members played an outsized role in delivering some important states in 16.

SCOTUS not flipping on the core issue of the Second Amendment being an individual right was worth what we spent and more. Had Hillary won, the Court would be at least 5-4 (and maybe 6-3) against individual gun ownership being a right. We also have 100 lower court judges and counting. Instead, we now have a Court that the other side is scared to take cases to. D.C. being shall-issue was the first direct result. There will be more.

I don't understand your repeated point about Trump creating new precedent for executive action. Multiple administrations have classified things as machine guns. The Bush 43 admin even classified a device and then reclassified it without going through any of the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act. That reclassification was upheld by the 11th Circuit. We don't agree with the administration's position on bump stocks (I even wrote these comments that make that very clear https://www.regulations.gov/document...018-0002-87401). You also seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about whether or not a particular executive action is legal having an effect on some other type of administrative action. One type of executive action doesn't justify another. Obama also tried to take executive action on various gun sale loopholes, but his admin discovered that FOPA closely constrains available administrative action when it comes to defining who is "engaged in the business" of being a firearms dealer. Three years of effort led to the creation of this booklet: https://www.atf.gov/file/100871/download, which is about all that they can do on limiting gun sales without Congressional action.

I know you already expressed that the ATT being unsigned was not a big deal, I disagree. But, I think this is also the beginning of the administration looking for positive things it can do for gun owners, not the end.

No one in Congress fled from positive gun legislation, we simply didn't have the votes in the Senate to get to 60.

[Hambo]

Are there any Dem presidential candidates remotely friendly to the 2A and law abiding gun owners??

No, but choose Republicans in primaries very carefully because a lot of them aren't any better. My Republican representative, a combat wounded vet, immediately proposed AWB after Parkland. When I WTF'ed him on it, he said he wants to protect kids and that we don't need guns like he carried in war. Now that he's been re-elected once, we're going to be stuck with him until he makes a Senate run.

[joshs]

Here's a clue - the progun politicians at the highest level say they will 'defend' the 2nd Amend. Ever hear a major speech saying they will 'expand' the 2nd Amend. rights? Nope.

That's because you can't legally expand the protection of a constitutional amendment without going through the process of amending the constitution.

[blues]

No, but choose Republicans in primaries very carefully because a lot of them aren't any better. My Republican representative, a combat wounded vet, immediately proposed AWB after Parkland. When I WTF'ed him on it, he said he wants to protect kids and that we don't need guns like he carried in war. Now that he's been re-elected once, we're going to be stuck with him until he makes a Senate run.

That guy is a complete jackass and nincompoop. Every time I see him on TV I can't but shake my head at his antics.

[NETim]

No, but choose Republicans in primaries very carefully because a lot of them aren't any better. My Republican representative, a combat wounded vet, immediately proposed AWB after Parkland. When I WTF'ed him on it, he said he wants to protect kids and that we don't need guns like he carried in war. Now that he's been re-elected once, we're going to be stuck with him until he makes a Senate run.

That's very true. I would never write a blank check to the GOP. However, I'm simply pointing out that out of the hundreds of folks lining up on the Dem side for a run for the WH, not one appears to be gun friendly.

The folks who do things right don't matter to the current version of the Democratic Party.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Josh, No, you miss the point. The rights have been curtailed and cut back. Expanding them might be better expressed as restoring them.

An example, the HPA - the right was restricted and the act was to 'expand' it. However, Congress fled from that bill as soon as it could. The state AWBs limit the right. The SAGA act which went nowhere would have restored that curtailed right. So is that an expansion?

When the President speaks to the NRA, does he say that he will with vigor, clearly oppose the state bans? For 30 million, he should, ya think? No, just BS platitudes.

The model is similar to the Civil Rights Acts which restored/expanded the right to vote for oppressed folks.

[OlongJohnson]

From the article:
"Cory will work to close this loophole in federal oversight and allow the Consumer Product Safety Commission to ensure gun safety by making safety warnings and issuing recalls for faulty firearms."

On the plus side, Sig would be held accountable.

Government mandated recalls would be worse than the repeal of PLCAA.

California's "roster" is already based on the assertion that any handgun not on it is "dangerous." Kamala Harris exercised executive authority as AG of the state to declare that any handgun not including microstamping technology could not be approved for listing on the roster. Therefore, by gun banner logic, any firearm not incorporating microstamping technology is dangerous. It's a small jump to say recall and fix them or destroy them. All of them.

[joshs]

Government mandated recalls would be worse than the repeal of PLCAA.

Fortunately, there's an express limitation of CPSC's jurisdiction for firearms and ammunition.

[OlongJohnson]

My point is that it's on their radar to go after that, just like going after the PLCAA, and that would be a very bad thing if they succeed. Both would require legislation.

[joshs]

My point is that it's on their radar to go after that, just like going after the PLCAA, and that would be a very bad thing if they succeed. Both would require legislation.

No doubt. I'm not sure that Booker knows about the limitation on CPSC authority. He might think it's something that he could actually do with executive action.