What exactly can a president do for or against guns?

[The Exile]

Pretty simple question. I was reading up on "mysterious new comer" Bernie Sanders and I found he basically said "I don't understand why anyone would need an AK" so that's got me worried about the possibility of a redux of the Clinton assault ban to the point I'm considering dipping into student loans to get something that might not be on market in the future while I still can.

So let's say Democrats win the 2016 presidential election, how much of a danger mode am I in?

 

[JohnKSa]

1. The president can sign anti-gun legislation that passes through Congress and make it law.

2. The president can, via executive orders and actions, limit the import of various firearms and ammunition. That will tend to drive up prices and hurt availability.

3. The president wields some level of sway over Congress. If it is known that the president supports anti-gun legislation, it could make it easier to pass through Congress.

4. The president can, via executive orders and actions, change some aspects of how federal firearms laws are interpreted/acted upon by the enforcement arm of the federal government.

 

[USAF_Vet]

Despite the undying rumor to the contrary, the President can not decree something illegal by royal decree. Sanders (or anyone else for that matter), if President, can not simply ban AK's or any other weapon because he wants to. If that were possible, don't you think Obama, gun sales of the decade, would have done so?

 

[DeepSouth]

We don't know.

Think of it like this, what if tomorrow the ATF got a phone call from the POTUS (head of the executive branch that covers the ATF) and That phone call was simply, "begin to interprete 'regulations' as strictly as possible."

What exactly could happen, we don't know, and I hope we never do.

 

[Frank Ettin]

And the President can appoint judges to the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, as vacancies occur.

 

[steve4102]

And the President can appoint judges to the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, as vacancies occur.

This is a key issue for me.

Many talk about the President and the Congress, but IMO, the Supreme Court is what worries me the most.

The next President will most likely have the opportunity to appoint a new SC justice or two. The SC is basically a 5-4 slit right now, if we allow it to become a 4-5 split, the Second Amendment may be in deep trouble.

 

[TimSr]

And the President can appoint judges to the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, as vacancies occur.

This has had, and will have greater impact than any other action. Judges have great consequences long after the president who appointed them is gone.

 

[yugorpk]

There is not much that he can do directly. EO's don't have as much pull as people think. They could start actually enforcing gun laws on the books like Janet Reno tried to do but a lot of bad press made that unpalatable. Thats the problem/silver lining. If you get too aggressive you get yourself and your party kicked out of town for a while.

 

[barnbwt]

"And the President can appoint judges to the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, as vacancies occur."
Not to mention pack the high court with his buddies, whenever. I'm convinced we're nearing such a crisis again should a contentious gun control case become in play.

TCB

 

[Sistema1927]

Elections have consequences.

As President, appointment of judges and justices is probably the most lasting legacy. The Obama presidency will continue to haunt us for decades, if not generations, to come.

 

[Prince Yamato]

And the President can appoint judges to the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, as vacancies occur.

This. Sanders doesn't seem threatening as an individual, but make no mistake, he'll appoint people who think like him or are more extreme to the judiciary. That's when things will look bad.

Remember, Heller was 5:4 in our favor. With more Dem appointments, it could be 5:4 against us.

 

[plexreticle]

2. The president can, via executive orders and actions, limit the import of various firearms and ammunition. That will tend to drive up prices and hurt availability.

This is exactly what happen with Norinco in the US.

 

[vamo]

Not much really. The biggest threats come at the state level, if you live in a state that generally allows freedom in regards to guns then theres no need to make financial sacrifices to buy now.

And Bernie isn't mysterious or new hes been in congress since the early 90's generally votes yes on AWB's mag restrictions and background checks, but does not seem as radical an anti as the party core.

 

[steve4102]

Not much really. The biggest threats come at the state level, if you live in a state that generally allows freedom in regards to guns then theres no need to make financial sacrifices to buy now.

Appointing Justices to the Supreme Court is a Real Big deal and should not be taken lightly.

"Not much" on his/her own, maybe, but putting those in power that Can Do Much, is what we should be concerned about.

 

[orionengnr]

Don't forget "coattails".

If Hillary (or Joe, or Bernie) wins, it is likely that a number of other Dems ride along with them into office, possibly shifting the Senate/House balance back in that direction.

That opens up a lot of possibilities, none of them good.

The Supreme Court appointments, as pointed out earlier, are a certainty. Several Justices are so old that they are likely hanging on for the next election before retiring (or dropping dead).

As was also pointed out, elections have consequences.

 

[Mousegun]

And the President can appoint judges to the federal courts, including the Supreme Court, as vacancies occur.

So watch out for Ruth Ginsberg. She may call it quits a few months before Obungo's time is up and he will get to tilt the court with a super lib appointment.

 

[BullSlinger]

When I think of what POTUS could do, I begin to wonder to who thought up Operation Fast and Furious and what could have happened if a whistleblower did not blow the lid of of it.

 

[JohnKSa]

This is exactly what happen with Norinco in the US.

Correct. That's what happened to nearly all Chinese small arms & ammunition with only a few exceptions. In the early 1990s before the action was taken, you could buy an unused Chinese SKS AND 500 rounds of ammunition to go with it for right around $100 bucks and Chinese 7.62x25 ammo was about 6 cents a round in bulk.

 

[kozak6]

The president could suggest bills to congress, sign bills, veto bills, and stack the Supreme Court.

The president can suggest the BATFE reinterpret the law. The BATFE can pretty much reinterpret the law however they want. Look at the barrel ban, 7N6 ban, and the other bans of steel core surplus ammo.

The president can stop imports through diplomatic action. Consider Clinton and the Voluntary Restraint Agreement with Russia.

 

[vamo]

Appointing Justices to the Supreme Court is a Real Big deal and should not be taken lightly.

"Not much" on his/her own, maybe, but putting those in power that Can Do Much, is what we should be concerned about.

OP is asking about immediate threats to gun ownership should a dem win in 2016, judicial appointments are a very big deal, but the question is: should I buy a gun now before another dem is elected? And the answer to that is no, if your state doesn't have an awb already there is nothing the president can do on their own to institute one.

 

[SlayerOfBunnies]

> So let's say Democrats win the 2016 presidential election, how much of a danger mode am I in?

Lots. As has been mentioned, the next POTUS will likely replace perhaps three members of the Supreme Court. They have an enormous bearing on what lawsuits can be heard and on how the Constitution will be defended / destroyed / etc.

 

[Praxidike]

This is a key issue for me.

Many talk about the President and the Congress, but IMO, the Supreme Court is what worries me the most.

The next President will most likely have the opportunity to appoint a new SC justice or two. The SC is basically a 5-4 slit right now, if we allow it to become a 4-5 split, the Second Amendment may be in deep trouble.

Seems like this fact is lost on many of the voters on our side. They rather lose based on principals and nominating someone who's way far to the right vs getting some who can win into office. We were only one vote away from the 2nd Ammendment being interpreted as NOT extending beyond the home.

Many are so bitter and blinded by what this current Administration has done that they aren't realizing just how immensely important just "winning" this election is. I personally think its just a matter of time before a ban is in place again especially being that they're winning elections and are stacking the judicial deck against us.

 

[Prince Yamato]

Seems like this fact is lost on many of the voters on our side. They rather lose based on principals and nominating someone who's way far to the right vs getting some who can win into office. We were only one vote away from the 2nd Ammendment being interpreted as NOT extending beyond the home.

Many are so bitter and blinded by what this current Administration has done that they aren't realizing just how immensely important just "winning" this election is. I personally think its just a matter of time before a ban is in place again especially being that they're winning elections and are stacking the judicial deck against us.

I totally agree. These people's "principals" will be useless when they're facing down an ultra-liberal supreme court.

A lot of these same folks will puff up their chests and say how they'll use their guns to "fight" or they'll bury their guns for when things will be better. The reality is, most of them will just turn into decrepit old men who sit around gun shops and complain about how nothing is like the "old days" and their guns will collect dust "buried" in the back of their wive's closets.

 

[Sunray]

"...the President can not decree something illegal by royal decree..." That's exactly what Clinton did when he banned the importation of some Norinco rifles. Mind you, he used the excuse of punishing China's human rights policies. And the assorted M1A clone makers' marketing types claiming M305 et al to be unsafe.

 

[alsaqr]

That's exactly what Clinton did when he banned the importation of some Norinco rifles.

Yep, the president prior to Clinton banned the importation over 40 models of milsurp rifles: Claimed the guns had no "sporting purposes". So much for the "lesser of two evils".