Gun Control Options

[el_bryanto]

What do you prefer?

10 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Complete Gun Confiscation
	1 (10%)
	Laws a bit stronger than those the President has proposed
	7 (70%)
	The President's plan is what I like
	0 (0%)
	I think the President's plan goes a bit too far
	0 (0%)
	I think we have enough laws right now; lets start enforcing them!
	2 (20%)
	I think an armed society is a polite society
	0 (0%)
	Obviously you've forgotten the most obvious solution which I will provide below!
	0 (0%)
	You blundering dunderhead - stop posting bullshit polls!
	0 (0%)
	I like to vote!
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[HappyMe]

1. The President's plan.

[HockeyMom]

2. I would favor National Registration of all guns

If a gun is registered to a certain person, it cannot be transferred to another person, unless that person underwent their own background check. This would help with people not be checked because they obtained a gun as a GIFT and the gun was not SOLD.

[pipoman]

3. The President understands the Constitutional limitations on what can and cannot be done..

some of his recommendations to congress are impossible, constitutionally, on their face. Perhaps constitutional scholars can come up with a way around some of the hurtles..we'll see..

[el_bryanto]

5. Which ones are unconstitutional? nt

[pipoman]

6. Not necessarily any are unconstitutional..

closing the "gun show loophole" at the federal level has been met with seeming insurmountable constitutional hurtles in the past.

Assault weapons ban has suffered from inability to unambiguously define "assault weapon" while still abiding the constitutional standard set by scotus in 1939 for more heavily regulating arms of, "in common use for lawful purposes"..

[farminator3000]

7. the words 'executive order' aren't in the constitution, but the concept is

Basis in United States Constitution (wiki)

Although there is no constitutional provision or statute that explicitly permits executive orders, there is a vague grant of "executive power" given in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution, and furthered by the declaration "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 5. Most executive orders use these Constitutional reasonings as the authorization allowing for their issuance to be justified as part of the President's sworn duties,[2] the intent being to help direct officers of the U.S. Executive carry out their delegated duties as well as the normal operations of the federal government: the consequence of failing to comply possibly being the removal from office.[3]

***

done before-
U.S. BANS IMPORTS OF ASSAULT RIFLES IN SHIFT BY BUSH
By CHARLES MOHR, Special to the New York Times
Published: March 15, 1989
The Bush Administration today banned imports of semiautomatic assault rifles indefinitely, pending a review of whether the military-style weapons are being used for sporting purposes.

***

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/president-obamas-missing-executive-order-on-gun-control-20130116

***

let me remind you that Feinstein's new 'BAN' has a list of ~120 banned guns and OVER 900 'grandfathered' that people can keep

[pipoman]

8. Executive orders

is not the same as making new laws. They are very simply orders from the President to executive staff in his administration. The orders can be pertaining to enforcement of existing laws. For instance, the President could issue an executive order stating that his Justice Department will no longer investigate or prosecute marijuana laws/violations. This wouldn't legalize marijuana, that will require congressional approval, it only orders his Justice Department not to spend their resources on this type of activity.

Feinstein's bill will have to make it through the House Judiciary Committee before it will go to a floor vote..we'll see how that works out. Even if it would make it to a vote in both houses and is signed into law doesn't mean it won't be struck down by SCOTUS, this is the job of the Judiciary Committees (to determine viability). Even if a ban of specific weapons were in place, such as an AR-15 ban, tomorrow morning Colt and Armalite will unveil there new AR-16...now it will take 6 months or more to get AR-16 on the list, then will come 17. No, defining "assault weapon" will be no easy task. In fact, there is a video from around 2004 which shows the FBI director, the BATFE director, and an Armorer from LA testifying before congress stating defining assault weapon is nearly impossible without including common hunting guns..

What I see happening is possibly higher capacity magazines could end up on the NFA registration..most of the guns, including AR-15 will be a tough sell that it isn't "in common use for lawful purposes"..again IMO

[Puzzledtraveller]

4. Strict penalties for irresponsible and negligent owners

I champion gun ownership as a right but with that come responsibility, keep them locked up, use child safety locks. If your guns are used in a crime and their access was due to your negligence you should bare some responsibility including selling or trading them and those guns later used in a crime regardless of whether or not you had knowledged before hand. Strict penalties like this will have a two fold effect, more responsible ownership and safety in keeping guns secure and encouraging that private sales and trades be documented to cover your rear thus also putting the transaction in the public record. You choose not to do that fine, you take the risk and you pay part of the bill when it comes due and their are people killed.

[hogwyld]

9. Something along the lines of

New York's recent gun regulations. I like background checks on ammo purchases as well.