testtest

Biden aide says he will use Executive Action on firearms shortly after entering office.

So, while the sheep are waiting on their 9 months+ federal background check for their class III permit, which will give them the privilege of owning and paying a $200 tax on a rifle they already owned what are they to do with the evil, class III AR 15s they have in their safe? Without a class III license and taxes paid it'll be a felony to possess them.
 
My thinking is that he will not be able to do what he wants by executive action. Most of the time (as far as I am aware), executive action is more directed towards federal agencies than the general population He could probably, through ATF and changing "definitions," make life miserable for a lot of folks. I guess we will have to wait and see.
 
somorris said:
My thinking is that he will not be able to do what he wants by executive action. Most of the time (as far as I am aware), executive action is more directed towards federal agencies than the general population He could probably, through ATF and changing "definitions," make life miserable for a lot of folks. I guess we will have to wait and see.
Click to expand...
That’s my guess also @somorris
 
My recollection, though it's been a while, is the 1968 gun control act removed any requirement for owners to register firearms they already own if the model was added to the NFA list after they bought it. I don't think that's been changed but I haven't looked for a while. If that's still the case then no executive order can make someone who owns an AR, AK, SCAR, etc register the gun. If they can't be required to register, then there is no mechanism for any LEO then I think a mandatory buyback or registration order is unenforceable without Congress agreeing to it. No chance that happens. that wouldn't happen even if the Senate switches to Democrat control. I can only think of one senator or representative from my state, Minnesota, who might be safe from getting voted out if they supported such legislation.
 
The following is an excerpt from an article found on Fox news. In it, Mr Biden talks about his pending use of Executive Orders, and what EO's he says he can't make (getting rid of MSR's in this particular case). I linked the article below for content purposes only, as it starts off with the belief that the call for de-funding the police hurt the Democrats in the 2020 elections, and goes on to other subjects during his conference call.

"During the call, Biden also expressed concern about the downside of using executive orders to enact policy changes. The president-elect said he would use executive authority to reverse actions President Trump took by the same method, but added that he was “not going to violate the Constitution.”

“Our only hope and the way to deal with it is, where I have executive authority, I will use it to undo every single damn thing this guy has done by executive authority, but I’m not going to exercise executive authority where it’s a question, where I can come along and say, ‘I can do away with assault weapons,’” Biden said. “There’s no executive authority to do away that. And no one has fought harder to get rid of assault weapons than me, me, but you can’t do it by executive order.”

We'll see if he keeps to this premise going forth.

Link to article below, where the above excerpt was taken & not meant to be discussed here on its original subject matter:

www.foxnews.com

Biden, in leaked audio, suggests GOP 'beat the living h--- out of us' over 'defund the police'

Biden said that public calls for police reform should be avoided ahead of the Georgia Senate runoff vote.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com
 
You know, if Democrats were serious about damaging 2A rights (on the Federal level), they had carte blanche the first two years of the Obama presidency to do that—they could have reinstated AWB94, but without the sunset...yet they didn’t.

Just like if Republicans were serious about reinstating 2A rights, they had carte blanche the first two years of Trump’s presidency—they could have passed national reciprocal carry, or the hearing protection act...yet they didn’t.

Fact is, based on deeds, not words...for the past 20 years, 2A issues are just something both sides pay lip service to in order to satisfy their base...but they’re all talk, no action.
 
HansGruber said:
You know, if Democrats were serious about damaging 2A rights (on the Federal level), they had carte blanche the first two years of the Obama presidency to do that—they could have reinstated AWB94, but without the sunset...yet they didn’t.

Just like if Republicans were serious about reinstating 2A rights, they had carte blanche the first two years of Trump’s presidency—they could have passed national reciprocal carry, or the hearing protection act...yet they didn’t.

Fact is, based on deeds, not words...for the past 20 years, 2A issues are just something both sides pay lip service to in order to satisfy their base...but they’re all talk, no action.
Click to expand...
Very valid point
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top