Can Obama use his Executive power to immediately ban high-powered rifles and big magazines?

[floppyboo]

Anyone have an answer or ideas on this? If it went to the Supreme Court, would the expiration of assault weapons law have anything to bear, or would it be further proof that a pre- existing law was approved?

[floppyboo]

1. sorry for edits - will change username to types faster than thinks

[Agnosticsherbet]

2. No. That would require legislation, I believe.

[TeddyR]

3. The answer to the first question is no, he cannot

Ban rifles or magazines using an executive order.

[NutmegYankee]

4. No. Executive orders only direct how the executive branch enforces a law.

He needs a new law, preferably like Connecticut's law that very effectively stopped AR-15 sales.

[floppyboo]

6. So, could states one-by-one act more immediately?

How did that bill pass in Connecticut?

[NutmegYankee]

7. Yes, states could ban the sale right now.

Connecticut passed its bill in 2013 in response to the Sandy Hook shooting. It's an effective piece of legislation.

[frazzled]

8. There has to be a federal law that applies universally

States passing their own laws is helpful to get to that federal place (as it was in marriage equality). But if you can drive an hour to the next state, which doesn't have such a law, it's meaningless. We need a federal assault weapons ban.

[NutmegYankee]

9. It's not that easy. Out-of-state sales have to be shipped to an FFL in-state by federal law.

And that FFL in-state would have to deny the sale based on state law.

[TeddyR]

10. The chance of an assault weapons ban

Passing in most states is pretty close to zero. There are probably fewer than 10 states that would voluntarily pass an assault weapons ban.

[yeoman6987]

11. If France can pass it we can

They've had one for years and it works!

[TeddyR]

12. To be clear

We might be able to pass one at the federal level, but none of the states in the south (including Virginia), mountain states or most of the Midwest are going to implement such a ban. And I think there is some room for debate regarding the claim that France's ban really "worked."

[yeoman6987]

13. Federal law trumps state law. France law does work.

[jmg257]

17. Pretty sure the federal AWB was never challenged in court. These days

there is a decent chance it would be struck down.

It would depend on the judges, and what level of scrutiny they use, knowing it is in contrast to the 2nd.

[TeddyR]

18. Oh, I agree that federal law trumps state law

And that a federal ban would be enforceable nationwide (though tell that to the states that have legalized marijuana). I'm simply stating that a state-by-state ban would never happen.

And yes, France's ban may be effective, but it did not prevent the recent attacks in Paris. And I believe the Paris attackers used actual automatic weapons, unlike any of the attacks in the US, which have used semi-automatic rifles.

[jmg257]

19. Also, the law must written in ways to really it make it worth while...

features test are traditional ways of defining AWs, and grandfathering is often allowed.

NY passed their AW, and this is still legal.



Registration in NY dealt with existing stock (but with little compliance).

Mag capacity is also an issue.

[jwirr]

15. Can you tell us why they would not? What are they thinking?

[TeddyR]

20. Automatic weapons are already illegal under federal law

And have been since the mid-80s. The firearm used in the Orlando attack was a semi-automatic rifle, meaning it fires one round (not multiple rounds) with each trigger pull, and is legal largely everywhere except a handful of states. It is not a military rifle and is functionally similar to most hunting rifles on the market. And semi-automatic rifles are used in only a small percentage of murders when compared to handguns. In reality they aren't any deadlier (and are used in far fewer murders) than a semi-automatic handgun, aside from the fact that they do accept magazines that hold 30 or more rounds. Prior to the Orlando attacks the deadliest mass shooting in the US was the Virginia Tech shootings in 2007, and the gunman there used two semi-automatic pistols. On a state by state basis I think there is little appetite for banning these types of weapons, although we may see a push for banning high-capacity magazines.

[jwirr]

21. Thank you. I do not pay a lot of attention to this issue and

this helps me see more clearly what we are talking about. And yes I can see that even state by state this is going to be hard to get changed. Even where I live.

[Southerncomfy]

5. No chance

[Kang Colby]

14. Zero chance.

[floppyboo]

16. I hope any state that figures they have a chance will follow Connecticut nt

[C_U_L8R]

22. Forget guns. How about restricting bullets?

Like a very high tariff or licensing.

I know, charged topic... but we need solutions here folks.

[TeddyR]

23. I think there are (at least) two problems

First, you run into the same constitutional issues -- courts have held that any sort of restriction on ammunition (or at least a ban on ammunition) would violate the Second Amendment. From a political perspective you have the same issues that you run into with gun control - the firearms lobby knows that any sort of excessive tax on ammunition is simply a way to restrict firearms ownership and would oppose it. For some Dem representatives that might not matter. But for others, like Manchin or Heitkamp, voting in favor of gun control (or firearms) is a good way to lose the next election.

Setting that aside, Seattle imposed a $.25 tax on each round of ammunition sold inside city limits. I believe a lower court recently upheld that tax, though it is unclear if it will be affirmed by an appellate court. Not sure the tax will do much good because those who want to purchase ammunition simply drive to one of the several stores just outside city limits (and you can purchase ammo online, but I don't know if an online purchase would be subject to the tax).