President Obama May Change His Mind On Assault Weapons Ban

The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • GunRelated

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    41   0   0
    Feb 22, 2012
    3,632
    113
    Walker, La
    As the one month anniversary of the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy passed, the White House has announced a change of plans for President Obama’s assault weapons ban. The announcement comes after Vice President Joe Biden and Attorney General Eric Holder met with gun supporters and gun manufacturers and sellers to come up with a viable solution for the surge in gun violence. Following the meetings, the White House calculates that a ban on assault weapons will be too tough to get through Congress.

    Instead, the White House is considering more “politically achievable” goals, such as strengthening background checks and keeping guns away from the mentally ill. The news will be disappointing to those who believed President Obama would possibly use Executive Orders as well as Legislative Orders to solve the problem of gun violence as Biden disclosed .

    In his public comments after the meetings, Biden — who President Obama appointed to lead the task force — did not mention an assault weapons ban at all as he discussed the work of the committee, which will be delivering suggestions to the president on Tuesday. Biden noted that his former colleagues in the Senate have long been “pretty universally opposed to any restrictions on gun ownership or what type of weapons can be purchased.”

    After seeing the media’s reaction to Biden’s obvious neglect to discuss the ban on assault weapons, the White House released a statement removing blame from the president and placing it on Congress. “President Obama has been clear that Congress should reinstate the assault weapons ban and that avoiding this issue just because it’s been politically difficult in the past is not an option,” said spokesman Matt Lehrich. “He’s also stressed that no single piece of legislation alone can solve this problem, which is why he has asked Vice President Biden to explore a wide array of proposals on topics ranging from gun laws to mental health to school safety.”

    http://www.yourblackworld.net/2013/01/black-news/president-assault-weapons/
     
    Last edited:

    luv1979

    Genesis 27:3
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 18, 2012
    341
    16
    Shreveport, LA
    I would love to see this turn out to be the case but I couldn't agree more that our 2nd Amendment rights will always be under attack and we will NEVER be able to stop fighting for them.

    We are always only one liberal congress and one liberal supreme court ruling from being criminals for possessing firearms.
     

    Ryan316

    My way or the highway
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 28, 2008
    147
    18
    Kenner, LA
    My money is on a hi cap ban and a more extensive background check (the latter of which I'm ok with). It'd be really nice if the article was right though.
     

    louis488

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Sep 20, 2010
    262
    16
    New Orleans
    I would love to see this turn out to be the case but I couldn't agree more that our 2nd Amendment rights will always be under attack and we will NEVER be able to stop fighting for them.

    We are always only one liberal congress and one liberal supreme court ruling from being criminals for possessing firearms.

    you got that right
     

    JNieman

    Dush
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Jul 11, 2011
    4,743
    48
    Lafayette
    I haven't seen this story anywhere except this 'yourblackworld' site which I never heard of before today.

    Is this based in reality and fact in some way, or just what 'some guy' thinks?
     

    Sin-ster

    GM of 4 Letter Outbursts
    Rating - 100%
    33   0   0
    I'm a bit lost as to what "more extensive background checks" might mean. In terms of mental health, I suppose-- "If you've been prescribed X, Y, Z-- no guns for you"?

    I see an infinite amount of problems and possible nightmares for normal, sane, law-abiding citizens wrapped up in that notion. Pardon me for not trusting the Federal Government for actually executing such a plan properly-- I've got experience enough with the USPS to know the odds.

    And what will it accomplish? Every loss of innocent life is a tragedy; every loss of a child is an even more poignant one; the loss of multiple children in a single incident, especially in a place where they are supposed to be safe to grow into their lives, is the stuff of our worst nightmare. "Keeping guns out of the hands of bad guys" is a noble and ideal notion-- but not a realistic one, IMO. Putting good guys in place to STOP said bad guys makes a lot more sense to me-- especially when all of these mass/school shooters are relative pushovers in the face of opposition.

    I definitely think we need to take a fresh look at our approach to mental illness/wellness-- but not just in terms of keeping sick people from opening fire on the populace. The goal should be getting them WELL-- not just keeping them away from the rest of us. (The truly psychotic and dangerous aside, of course...)
     

    bhart89

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Dec 25, 2011
    147
    16
    Stronger background checks is code word for the defense dept sharing info about PTSD with NICS.

    Call and write your reps and let them know that you will not support ANY infringement on your second amendment rights.
     

    Sin-ster

    GM of 4 Letter Outbursts
    Rating - 100%
    33   0   0
    Stronger background checks is code word for the defense dept sharing info about PTSD with NICS.

    One of MANY things running through my head about it. Not just PTSD-- any type of disorder, no matter how mundane.

    It just opens up too many possibilities-- and I'm typically the one preaching "that's tinfoil hat talk"!
     
    Last edited:

    hoghunter54

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    14   0   0
    Nov 9, 2012
    166
    16
    Westlake,la.
    I would assume as with the questions they now ask people on dr forms.I would think any medication related to any mental health issue will be on the lists.If this and hi cap bans is all they can get out of all this hype,then I'm sure they will try to stretch it as far as it will and could go.JMHO
     

    JNieman

    Dush
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Jul 11, 2011
    4,743
    48
    Lafayette
    One of MANY things running through my head about it. Not just PTSD-- any type of disorder, no matter how mundane.

    It just opens up too many possibilities-- and I'm typically the one preaching "that's tinfoil hat talk"!
    Especially if "ADD/ADHD" and "Social Anxiety / Mild Depression" is added to the mix. Wouldn't those two be like 50% of America? lol
     

    mpl006

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Nov 4, 2011
    386
    16
    Ruston
    Looking for a more informed opinion on this with regard to background checks. What are you thoughts of requiring background checks for all sales with the provision that a non-ffl could gain access to NICS and therefore not required to go to an ffl and pay a transfer fee?

    I wouldn't have a problem calling it in for a private sale if that is all that would be required.

    The main problem I can see with this is the 4473 issue. Would you have to fill one out and would the seller have to keep it for x years? I guess we would just have to pass the bill to see what's in it.

    Just curious what you guys think.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
     

    Vermiform

    Free Candy!
    Gold Member
    Marketplace Mod
    Rating - 100%
    13   0   0
    Sep 18, 2006
    5,271
    48
    Shreveport - or therebouts
    Looking for a more informed opinion on this with regard to background checks. What are you thoughts of requiring background checks for all sales with the provision that a non-ffl could gain access to NICS and therefore not required to go to an ffl and pay a transfer fee?

    I wouldn't have a problem calling it in for a private sale if that is all that would be required.

    The main problem I can see with this is the 4473 issue. Would you have to fill one out and would the seller have to keep it for x years? I guess we would just have to pass the bill to see what's in it.

    Just curious what you guys think.

    http://www.bayoushooter.com/forums/showthread.php?98449-What-we-stand-to-lose......&highlight=
     

    tim9lives

    Tim9
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jul 12, 2010
    1,675
    48
    New Orleans

    GunAddict

    constitutionalist
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Feb 23, 2008
    654
    16
    North Monroe, La. area
    Looking for a more informed opinion on this with regard to background checks. What are you thoughts of requiring background checks for all sales with the provision that a non-ffl could gain access to NICS and therefore not required to go to an ffl and pay a transfer fee?

    I wouldn't have a problem calling it in for a private sale if that is all that would be required.



    The main problem I can see with this is the 4473 issue. Would you have to fill one out and would the seller have to keep it for x years? I guess we would just have to pass the bill to see what's in it.

    Just curious what you guys think.




    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Just think, would you really want to give a total stranger all the personal info you put on that 4473?? Good way for ID theft. Don't think I would.
     
    Top Bottom