remember Kamala's promise to attack the Constitution

[hecatmoggie]

APRIL 2019
On April 22, 2019 Harris stated that, if elected President, she would give lawmakers in Congress 100 days to pass “reasonable gun safety laws,” during a CNN Town Hall in Manchester, New Hampshire ( here ). “If they fail to do it,” Harris continued, “then I will take executive action.”

Specifically, Harris outlined a proposal to put in place requirements for “anyone who sells more than five guns a year” to conduct background checks and for unlawful gun dealers to face penalties from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

A third stipulation of the order would prohibit “fugitives from justice” to purchase a weapon, or “any kind of weapon.” During these remarks, Harris made no mention of the role of law enforcement in gun safety and gun control measures.

AUGUST 2019
While addressing union members at a forum hosted by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees in Las Vegas, Nevada in August 2019, Harris was asked by the conservative outlet The Washington Examiner if any of her proposals for a “process of a ban in certain kind of guns” would involve creating a database of gun-owners or a more active role by law enforcement ( here ).

Harris responded by talking about her experience as California Attorney General (AG), when her office “put resources into allowing law enforcement to actually knock on the doors of people who were on two lists.” She explained this criteria as: “A list where they had been found by a court to be a danger to themselves and others, and were on a list where they were precluded and prohibited from owning a gun because of a conviction that prohibited that ownership.”

The entries of these lists, Harris said, were combined and then law enforcement was sent out “to take those guns.” ( here ). Harris clarified that it was necessary to separate “legal good ownership” from other gun-related issues, including the ownership of assault weapons.

The Senator did not specifically state that these measures implemented as California AG would be a part of her executive action on gun control, if elected President.

 

[The Stars Tremble]

"More than five guns a year" is quite reasonable. I'd prefer "all guns."

How is expanding background checks an infringement of your constitutional rights?

And if that is an infringement, do you oppose ALL background checks?

 

[poppopfox]

Re: the op

 

[BirdinHand]

Thank you for sharing! I like these ideas!

 

[eman623]

So she'd be a dictator on day 101. And again on day 102. And day 103. And so on.

 

[Grand Mal]

APRIL 2019
On April 22, 2019 Harris stated that, if elected President, she would give lawmakers in Congress 100 days to pass “reasonable gun safety laws,” during a CNN Town Hall in Manchester, New Hampshire ( here ). “If they fail to do it,” Harris continued, “then I will take executive action.”

Specifically, Harris outlined a proposal to put in place requirements for “anyone who sells more than five guns a year” to conduct background checks and for unlawful gun dealers to face penalties from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

A third stipulation of the order would prohibit “fugitives from justice” to purchase a weapon, or “any kind of weapon.” During these remarks, Harris made no mention of the role of law enforcement in gun safety and gun control measures.

AUGUST 2019
While addressing union members at a forum hosted by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees in Las Vegas, Nevada in August 2019, Harris was asked by the conservative outlet The Washington Examiner if any of her proposals for a “process of a ban in certain kind of guns” would involve creating a database of gun-owners or a more active role by law enforcement ( here ).

Harris responded by talking about her experience as California Attorney General (AG), when her office “put resources into allowing law enforcement to actually knock on the doors of people who were on two lists.” She explained this criteria as: “A list where they had been found by a court to be a danger to themselves and others, and were on a list where they were precluded and prohibited from owning a gun because of a conviction that prohibited that ownership.”

The entries of these lists, Harris said, were combined and then law enforcement was sent out “to take those guns.” ( here ). Harris clarified that it was necessary to separate “legal good ownership” from other gun-related issues, including the ownership of assault weapons.

The Senator did not specifically state that these measures implemented as California AG would be a part of her executive action on gun control, if elected President.

Trump said he would change the Constitution by Executive Order. On Day 1. Said he would eliminate birthright citizenship.
And I have yet to hear a rightist say he can't, or even shouldn't.

 

[Greenbeard]

It’s not 2019 anymore. Biden-Harris already got bipartisan gun legislation through.

Congress clears bipartisan gun reform legislation

On June 25, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, the first major gun reform legislation in decades.

www.naco.org

 

[natman]

"More than five guns a year" is quite reasonable. I'd prefer "all guns."

Seems reasonable when you look just at that. What it leaves out is that if you sell more than 5 guns a year you have to get a Federal Firearms License (FFL). The kicker is that since the Clinton Administration Democratic administrations have made getting an FFL harder and harder to get and have been revoking as many licenses as they can. There were 245,628 FFLs thirty years ago, there are roughly half as many now. In order to have an FFL, you have to follow zoning laws to have a business, have a local business license and in California, have video monitoring of your "store" that you keep for years.

How is expanding background checks an infringement of your constitutional rights?

And if that is an infringement, do you oppose ALL background checks?

Universal background checks are possibly constitutional. The problem is that UBC is not enough for Democrats; they like to slip in little "features" like registration and the ability to take as long as they feel like to process the check. The "I" in NICS (the federal background check system) stands for "Instant". Only a true apparatchik would consider "As long as it takes" as "Instant". And it should be free, unless you think charging $40 to vote would be constitutional.

So read the fine print on any universal background check proposal. Is it readily available, free and instant with no registration?

I didn't think so.

 

[JMB1911A1]

It’s not 2019 anymore. Biden-Harris already got bipartisan gun legislation through.

Congress clears bipartisan gun reform legislation

On June 25, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, the first major gun reform legislation in decades.

www.naco.org

1 or 2 Republican cucks doesn’t make it “bi-partisan”. And that legislation had nothing to do with what Kamala wants to do.

BTW, Kamala says we must support “the will of the people” in Venezuela, presumably referring to Maduro’s election “win”.

Don’t forget that Maduro and Chavez disarmed the population in Venezuela. So, only one side has guns and they keep “winning” elections.

 

[ElChupacabra]

So she'd be a dictator on day 101. And again on day 102. And day 103. And so on.

How will she do that, please share this apparent plan.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Seems reasonable when you look just at that. What it leaves out is that if you sell more than 5 guns a year you have to get a Federal Firearms License (FFL). The kicker is that since the Clinton Administration Democratic administrations have made getting an FFL harder and harder to get and have been revoking as many licenses as they can. There were 245,628 FFLs thirty years ago, there are roughly half as many now. In order to have an FFL, you have to follow zoning laws to have a business, have a local business license and in California, have video monitoring of your "store" that you keep for years.


Universal background checks are possibly constitutional. The problem is that UBC is not enough for Democrats; they like to slip in little "features" like registration and the ability to take as long as they feel like to process the check. The "I" in NICS (the federal background check system) stands for "Instant". Only a true apparatchik would consider "As long as it takes" as "Instant". And it should be free, unless you think charging $40 to vote would be constitutional.

So read the fine print on any universal background check proposal. Is it readily available, free and instant with no registration?

I didn't think so.

Good post.

Don't forget that Federal government can regulate commercial sales and private sales across state lines under the interstate commerce clause (which they already do). There is no Constitutional authority for the Federal government to regulate intrastate sales between private parties.

 

[JMB1911A1]

How will she do that, please share this apparent plan.

Ask her. She said it.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Ask her. She said it.

Please cite where she said she would attack the Constitution. Last I checked, the Constitution is a collection of Amendments and not just one. Executive orders are within the framework of executive branch's purview, and you'll notice she deferred to Congress first rather than resorting EO first. Also, laws to amend the constitution or modify what's codified in it is part of the political process.

 

[JMB1911A1]

Please cite where she said she would attack the Constitution. Last I checked, the Constitution is a collection of Amendments and not just one. Executive orders are within the framework of executive branch's purview, and you'll notice she deferred to Congress first rather than resorting EO first. Also, laws to amend the constitution or modify what's codified in it is part of the political process.

Here is her exact quote:

Upon being elected, I will give the United States Congress 100 days to get their act together and have the courage to pass reasonable gun safety laws. And if they fail to do it, then I will take executive action.

She wants red flag laws, universal background checks and an “assault weapons” ban. Those have to be done in Congress. There is no conceivable way to do them via executive action unless you ignore the Constitution (both the 2A and the separation of powers).

 

[RF667799]

"More than five guns a year" is quite reasonable. I'd prefer "all guns."

How is expanding background checks an infringement of your constitutional rights?

And if that is an infringement, do you oppose ALL background checks?

I propose expanding background checks all the time. The gun control zealots don't seem to like the idea. In fact, they are sometimes vehemently opposed.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Here is her exact quote:

Upon being elected, I will give the United States Congress 100 days to get their act together and have the courage to pass reasonable gun safety laws. And if they fail to do it, then I will take executive action.

She wants red flag laws, universal background checks and an “assault weapons” ban. Those have to be done in Congress. There is no conceivable way to do them via executive action unless you ignore the Constitution (both the 2A and the separation of powers).

And issuing Executive Orders is within the president's purview (per Article II of the Constitution). This is nothing new and all sorts of US presidents have used EOs in the absence of Congressional action. Now, there's certainly an argument over the sense that makes, and I am not one who advocates EOs as a means to solve these issues, which should be sorted by the Legislative branch. We've had former presidents address immigration issues in this manner as well, which is not the way it should work.

 

[JMB1911A1]

And issuing Executive Orders is within the president's purview (per Article II of the Constitution). This is nothing new and all sorts of US presidents have used EOs in the absence of Congressional action. Now, there's certainly an argument over the sense that makes, and I am not one who advocates EOs as a means to solve these issues, which should be sorted by the Legislative branch. We've had former presidents address immigration issues in this manner as well, which is not the way it should work.

True. EOs are legal. But I see no way to put new rules in place via EOs. Especially red flag laws, UBCs, and a weapons ban.

Of course, the law has never stopped presidents for using EOs illegal, for example DACA (Obama) and student loan relief (Biden).

 

[Simon W. Moon]

APRIL 2019
On April 22, 2019 Harris stated that, if elected President, she would give lawmakers in Congress 100 days to pass “reasonable gun safety laws,” during a CNN Town Hall in Manchester, New Hampshire ( here ). “If they fail to do it,” Harris continued, “then I will take executive action.”

Specifically, Harris outlined a proposal to put in place requirements for “anyone who sells more than five guns a year” to conduct background checks and for unlawful gun dealers to face penalties from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

A third stipulation of the order would prohibit “fugitives from justice” to purchase a weapon, or “any kind of weapon.” During these remarks, Harris made no mention of the role of law enforcement in gun safety and gun control measures.

AUGUST 2019
While addressing union members at a forum hosted by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees in Las Vegas, Nevada in August 2019, Harris was asked by the conservative outlet The Washington Examiner if any of her proposals for a “process of a ban in certain kind of guns” would involve creating a database of gun-owners or a more active role by law enforcement ( here ).

Harris responded by talking about her experience as California Attorney General (AG), when her office “put resources into allowing law enforcement to actually knock on the doors of people who were on two lists.” She explained this criteria as: “A list where they had been found by a court to be a danger to themselves and others, and were on a list where they were precluded and prohibited from owning a gun because of a conviction that prohibited that ownership.”

The entries of these lists, Harris said, were combined and then law enforcement was sent out “to take those guns.” ( here ). Harris clarified that it was necessary to separate “legal good ownership” from other gun-related issues, including the ownership of assault weapons.

The Senator did not specifically state that these measures implemented as California AG would be a part of her executive action on gun control, if elected President.

Remember when
Trump said the govt should take guns from Americans
w/o due process
even when the govt lacks the right to take them?
or did you conveniently forget?


TRUMP:

You know, the police saw that he was — the problem, they didn’t take any guns away. Now, that could have been policing.​

I think they [the police] should have taken them [the guns] way anyway, whether they had the right or not.​

TRUMP:

"I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida. He had a lot of firearms. They saw everything. To go to court would have taken a long time.​

So you could do exactly what you’re saying, but take the guns first, go through due process second."​

source: trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov

Remarks by President Trump, Vice President Pence, and Bipartisan Members of Congress in Meeting on School and Community Safety​

Issued on: February 28, 2018​

Roosevelt Room​

3:02 P.M. EST​

 

[ElChupacabra]

True. EOs are legal. But I see no way to put new rules in place via EOs. Especially red flag laws, UBCs, and a weapons ban.

Of course, the law has never stopped presidents for using EOs illegal, for example DACA (Obama) and student loan relief (Biden).

It's why Congress needs to act, but they've abdicated their ability to do so and instead punt to the executive and judicial branches. The key piece here is there is recourse against EO's legally, so their merit (or lack there of) can be challenged. I don't think EOs on gun legislation are the way to go, so what she's actually able to do will be tempered by the realism of what will definitely get challenged in court.

 

[hecatmoggie]

Remember when
Trump said the govt should take guns from Americans
w/o due process
even when the govt lacks the right to take them?
or did you conveniently forget?


TRUMP:

You know, the police saw that he was — the problem, they didn’t take any guns away. Now, that could have been policing.​

I think they [the police] should have taken them [the guns] way anyway, whether they had the right or not.​

TRUMP:

"I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida. He had a lot of firearms. They saw everything. To go to court would have taken a long time.​

So you could do exactly what you’re saying, but take the guns first, go through due process second."​

source: trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov

Remarks by President Trump, Vice President Pence, and Bipartisan Members of Congress in Meeting on School and Community Safety​

Issued on: February 28, 2018​

Roosevelt Room​

3:02 P.M. EST​

what was Trump talking about ? specifically please ? every law abiding US citizen ?

no

Nickolas Cruz - known mentally ill, known violent .............. do you not agree with Trump that enough was known on Cruz to set in motion intervention with police/authorities ?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

what was Trump talking about ? specifically please ? every law abiding US citizen ?

no

Nickolas Cruz - known mentally ill, known violent .............. do you not agree with Trump that enough was known on Cruz to set in motion intervention with police/authorities ?

LOL
the actual issue appears to have gone over you head
I think there was enough FOR DUE PROCESS TO BE FOLLOWED and for THE GOVT TO ESTABLISH ITS RIGHT TO SEIZE THE WEAPONS


in your humble opinion

When does the US Constitution allow the govt to take guns from Americans when the govt lacks the right to take the guns from Americans?​

​

When does the US Constitution allow the govt to take guns from Americans w/o due process?​

​

You have no ****en answer for either of those questions, do you?​

They are both ****en idiotic suggestions from Trump​

 

[Rich2018]

APRIL 2019
On April 22, 2019 Harris stated that, if elected President, she would give lawmakers in Congress 100 days to pass “reasonable gun safety laws,” during a CNN Town Hall in Manchester, New Hampshire ( here ). “If they fail to do it,” Harris continued, “then I will take executive action.”

Specifically, Harris outlined a proposal to put in place requirements for “anyone who sells more than five guns a year” to conduct background checks and for unlawful gun dealers to face penalties from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

A third stipulation of the order would prohibit “fugitives from justice” to purchase a weapon, or “any kind of weapon.” During these remarks, Harris made no mention of the role of law enforcement in gun safety and gun control measures.

AUGUST 2019
While addressing union members at a forum hosted by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees in Las Vegas, Nevada in August 2019, Harris was asked by the conservative outlet The Washington Examiner if any of her proposals for a “process of a ban in certain kind of guns” would involve creating a database of gun-owners or a more active role by law enforcement ( here ).

Harris responded by talking about her experience as California Attorney General (AG), when her office “put resources into allowing law enforcement to actually knock on the doors of people who were on two lists.” She explained this criteria as: “A list where they had been found by a court to be a danger to themselves and others, and were on a list where they were precluded and prohibited from owning a gun because of a conviction that prohibited that ownership.”

The entries of these lists, Harris said, were combined and then law enforcement was sent out “to take those guns.” ( here ). Harris clarified that it was necessary to separate “legal good ownership” from other gun-related issues, including the ownership of assault weapons.

The Senator did not specifically state that these measures implemented as California AG would be a part of her executive action on gun control, if elected President.

Just half measures. There can be no significant gun control without a repeal of the 2nd Amendment and a gun ban.

 

[hecatmoggie]

LOL
the actual issue appears to have gone over you head
I think there was enough FOR DUE PROCESS TO BE FOLLOWED and for THE GOVT TO ESTABLISH ITS RIGHT TO SEIZE THE WEAPONS


in your humble opinion

When does the US Constitution allow the govt to take guns from Americans when the govt lacks the right to take the guns from Americans?​

​

When does the US Constitution allow the govt to take guns from Americans w/o due process?​

​

You have no ****en answer for either of those questions, do you?​

They are both ****en idiotic suggestions from Trump​

so you would have allowed Cruz to have guns ? is a simple question

I'm thinking you're prefer red flag laws had stopped Cruz - as would Trump, as would I

and you're complaining about it ? Florida Red Flag laws now - are they used to stop bad people? do you support them?

 

[hecatmoggie]

Just half measures. There can be no significant gun control without a repeal of the 2nd Amendment and a gun ban.

sounds Kamala-ish

not very much in keeping with our Democracy though

 

[Roadvirus]

APRIL 2019
On April 22, 2019 Harris stated that, if elected President, she would give lawmakers in Congress 100 days to pass “reasonable gun safety laws,” during a CNN Town Hall in Manchester, New Hampshire ( here ). “If they fail to do it,” Harris continued, “then I will take executive action.”

Which would be struck down by any sensible-thinking court.

I hope that she's learned better what can and cannot be done by Presidential EO since 2019.