Joe Biden’s Proposals Include Incentivizing States to License Would-Be Gun Owners

Reptile

NES Member
Rating - 100%
108   0   0
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
18,956
Likes
8,601
Democrat presidential hopeful Joe Biden’s proposals for firearms include a push to incentivize states to license would-be gun owners.

Biden’s campaign website says, “Biden will enact legislation to give states and local governments grants to require individuals to obtain a license prior to purchasing a gun.”

His website does not explain if a Biden administration would pursue a licensing procedure resembling Illinois’ Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card, New Jersey’s Firearms Purchaser Identification Card, or some other type of license. But the policy sets forth support for the attainment of some type of license in order to purchase a gun.

Other gun proposals put forth by Biden include:

  1. A provision that could require every AR-15 rifle to be registered under the National Firearms Act of 1934. Unless there was some form of carve-out, this could mandate that American gun owners pay a $200 federal tax per AR-15 that they own. The National Rifle Association’s Andrew Arulanandam told Breitbart News that the current “low end” estimate of privately-owned AR-15s in the United States is 18 million. A tax of $200 on 18 million AR-15s means that gun owners could potentially be required to pay a collective $3.6 billion in taxes if this policy were enacted into legislation.
  2. A provision that could require Americans to sell back their so-called “high-capacity magazines” to the government or be registered under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). The latter, unless there was some form of carve-out, could mandate that American gun owners pay a $200 federal tax for every high-capacity magazine they currently own.
  3. A provision that could ban online sales of ammunition, guns, and gun parts.
  4. A pledge to revive the Social Security gun ban, which targeted benefit recipients who needed help managing their finances. The ban was adopted during the last full month of the Obama presidency and repealed during the first full month of the Trump presidency.
  5. A provision that would limit Americans a one-gun-a-month purchase maximum. The Biden campaign website says, “Biden supports legislation restricting the number of firearms an individual may purchase per month to one.”
 

GM-GUY

NES Member
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
10,828
Likes
8,071
Location
North Central Mass
You guys seem to forget, the court only reacts if a case is brought - do you think the GOP would bring a case? The Dems seem to bring a case when Trump sneezes, the GOP during the entire 8 years of 0bama - I'm not even sure they led on 0bama-Care (that Roberts screwed up out of whole cloth)
 

Waher

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 2, 2014
Messages
14,545
Likes
23,323
Location
Boston Gun & Rifle and Braintree Rifle & Pistol
The pro-2A vote is now 6-3.

Amy 'the rifle' Barret changed everything

Why do I say this?

Certiorari is governed by the "Rule of Four," it takes four votes. There were two reliable ones going in, now it becomes three. It just takes one more, and if any pro-2A hold-outs were worried before about the outcome of a case, they can now stop worrying. It only takes one more vote to grant cert. now. If Roberts is in the majority, he can keep an opinion or assign to whoever in the majority he chooses. If he dissents, that power goes to the senior Justice in the majority Justice Thomas.

Roberts is going to vote the right way in order to stay in the driver's seat.
 

JayMcB

NES Member
Rating - 100%
20   0   0
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
11,957
Likes
8,529
Location
Assachusetts when necessary. NH when possible
You guys seem to forget, the court only reacts if a case is brought - do you think the GOP would bring a case? The Dems seem to bring a case when Trump sneezes, the GOP during the entire 8 years of 0bama - I'm not even sure they led on 0bama-Care (that Roberts screwed up out of whole cloth)

I see your point, but couldn't any citizen seek redress with the court on an infringement? Why would it have to be the GOP? Heller, Miller, etc are cases named for individuals....not GOP orgs. I guess as long as your pockets are deep....you could take it to SCOTUS
 

GM-GUY

NES Member
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
10,828
Likes
8,071
Location
North Central Mass
That’s the trick, and we have to get through all the lower courts that as we have learned, tell us we don’t have standing. The ‘government’ can skip some of the lower courts.
 

LLF

NES Member
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Joined
Mar 30, 2017
Messages
448
Likes
520
Location
Martyville
All the provisions quoted by Reptile would have to be passed as laws, right?
I don't think it would be that easy for these laws to make it through the House and Senate, even if the Senate goes Dem.
And as Waher points out, even if some of these laws do get passed, they would most likely be immediately challenged as violations of the 2A. And the court is now 6-3 (5-4 if Roberts continues to waffle) pro-2A to one degree or another.
 

Bladerunner

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
2,007
Likes
6,412
The solution here as a gun owner is to purchase as many mags as possible, get another AR.

Give it as a gift to someone.

While the numbers currently are proof of common use, fortifying the militia's stock of firearms and mags that these f***ing tyrants want to take away, is one way to fight off these cucks.
 

Kevin_NH

NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
8,774
Likes
2,646
Location
WNW of MHT
All the provisions quoted by Reptile would have to be passed as laws, right?
Mostly. They could try playing games with re-classification, like the way they administratively turned Streetsweepers into Destructive Devices and bumpstocks into Machine Guns.

Push too far and it'll get a court challenge.

A provision that would limit Americans a one-gun-a-month purchase maximum. The Biden campaign website says, “Biden supports legislation restricting the number of firearms an individual may purchase per month to one.”
. . .
A provision that could require Americans to sell back their so-called “high-capacity magazines” to the government or be registered under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). The latter, unless there was some form of carve-out, could mandate that American gun owners pay a $200 federal tax for every high-capacity magazine they currently own.
I don't see anything in Federal law (NFA or otherwise) as-written which could possibly allow these, so something like this would have to pass as a new law, and would face a court challenge immediately.
 

last ranger

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jun 22, 2018
Messages
45
Likes
47
Location
02339
The only right they want to start with licensing and tax and then eliminate. Imagine if they made you get a license to vote or practice religion, they already have curtailed freedom of speech. They cried and fought to not have to have id to vote so they could get their fake votes counted so they could move on to the rest of their agenda to surpress the people and make us subjects instead of citizens.
 

Lank

NES Member
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Nov 11, 2009
Messages
5,267
Likes
2,345
Location
Run to the hills
Democrat presidential hopeful Joe Biden’s proposals for firearms include a push to incentivize states to license would-be gun owners.

Biden’s campaign website says, “Biden will enact legislation to give states and local governments grants to require individuals to obtain a license prior to purchasing a gun.”

His website does not explain if a Biden administration would pursue a licensing procedure resembling Illinois’ Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card, New Jersey’s Firearms Purchaser Identification Card, or some other type of license. But the policy sets forth support for the attainment of some type of license in order to purchase a gun.

Other gun proposals put forth by Biden include:

  1. A provision that could require every AR-15 rifle to be registered under the National Firearms Act of 1934. Unless there was some form of carve-out, this could mandate that American gun owners pay a $200 federal tax per AR-15 that they own. The National Rifle Association’s Andrew Arulanandam told Breitbart News that the current “low end” estimate of privately-owned AR-15s in the United States is 18 million. A tax of $200 on 18 million AR-15s means that gun owners could potentially be required to pay a collective $3.6 billion in taxes if this policy were enacted into legislation.
  2. A provision that could require Americans to sell back their so-called “high-capacity magazines” to the government or be registered under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). The latter, unless there was some form of carve-out, could mandate that American gun owners pay a $200 federal tax for every high-capacity magazine they currently own.
  3. A provision that could ban online sales of ammunition, guns, and gun parts.
  4. A pledge to revive the Social Security gun ban, which targeted benefit recipients who needed help managing their finances. The ban was adopted during the last full month of the Obama presidency and repealed during the first full month of the Trump presidency.
  5. A provision that would limit Americans a one-gun-a-month purchase maximum. The Biden campaign website says, “Biden supports legislation restricting the number of firearms an individual may purchase per month to one.”
Joe needs to EABOD immediately
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 16, 2015
Messages
1,732
Likes
1,196
Location
Down the rabbit hole, somewhere in Paradise.
Democrat presidential hopeful Joe Biden’s proposals for firearms include a push to incentivize states to license would-be gun owners.

Biden’s campaign website says, “Biden will enact legislation to give states and local governments grants to require individuals to obtain a license prior to purchasing a gun.”

His website does not explain if a Biden administration would pursue a licensing procedure resembling Illinois’ Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card, New Jersey’s Firearms Purchaser Identification Card, or some other type of license. But the policy sets forth support for the attainment of some type of license in order to purchase a gun.

Other gun proposals put forth by Biden include:

  1. A provision that could require every AR-15 rifle to be registered under the National Firearms Act of 1934. Unless there was some form of carve-out, this could mandate that American gun owners pay a $200 federal tax per AR-15 that they own. The National Rifle Association’s Andrew Arulanandam told Breitbart News that the current “low end” estimate of privately-owned AR-15s in the United States is 18 million. A tax of $200 on 18 million AR-15s means that gun owners could potentially be required to pay a collective $3.6 billion in taxes if this policy were enacted into legislation.
  2. A provision that could require Americans to sell back their so-called “high-capacity magazines” to the government or be registered under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). The latter, unless there was some form of carve-out, could mandate that American gun owners pay a $200 federal tax for every high-capacity magazine they currently own.
  3. A provision that could ban online sales of ammunition, guns, and gun parts.
  4. A pledge to revive the Social Security gun ban, which targeted benefit recipients who needed help managing their finances. The ban was adopted during the last full month of the Obama presidency and repealed during the first full month of the Trump presidency.
  5. A provision that would limit Americans a one-gun-a-month purchase maximum. The Biden campaign website says, “Biden supports legislation restricting the number of firearms an individual may purchase per month to one.”
He is insane if he tries to link the Social Security benefits entitled to those who earned them to our 2A rights. No correlation whatsoever. He believes that then he truly is early onset dementia!
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Jan 15, 2018
Messages
3,136
Likes
2,730
I'd like to know why none of Trump's campaign ads in FL, PA, MI, WI, and other swinger states haven't gone after this. Like, Trump goes up there and says "Protect your 2nd Amendment" (I do like how he says it's your 2nd Amendment, not the 2nd Amendment because it belongs to the people) but he doesn't get into specifics. Like, he speaks for 90 minutes and he can't lay out what all this means?

You tell people Biden will take your guns and they'll say, "I've heard that before." but you tell them how Biden/Harris will do it, then they'll listen. When existing law is added to it'd be very easy to require registration for all guns if Congress wanted it, then they can tax you for it, say $200 every gun, every year.

We put too much faith that SCOTUS will ever find their spine, but they are supposed to be the check that says that shit don't jive. Issue is they're all terrified of Democrats restructuring the courts when they get in power. What they fail to realize is that the Donks will do it no matter how they rule, they do not want to take the chance of another Trump happening and will put 100 justices on the court if they wish.

Anyway, without Congress passing a law, most of this stuff is not legal and even if SCOTUS refuses to rule as such because they're scared, the people can resist the orders. The Social Security thing can be done by EO as Obama did that before. The NFA stuff tho is possible if the framework for it is that devices or techniques that allow semi auto guns to simulate machine guns without actually being machine guns make it so semi autos are "readily convertible simulated machine guns" that they have to be treated as such, thus NFA'd, thus banned because of the Hughes Amendment.

You cannot regulate them with Executive authority (EO, DOJ/ATF reclassification) under any part of the NFA other than the machine gun definition, thus due to the Hughes Amendment, which cannot open the machine gun registry without a law by Congress, semi autos CANNOT be registered at which time all semi automatic guns must be surrendered or seized and then destroyed.

IDK how it survives judicial review because the law is clear as crystal that the only thing that makes a machine gun a machine gun is if it fires more than one round per trigger pull.

Magazines fall under no category of the NFA or GCA, so those are safe. The one gun a month rule is blatently unconstitutional and even if passed by Congress would be struck down.

Then there's the issue with pistol braces and the SBR laws again.
 

Kevin_NH

NES Member
Rating - 100%
9   0   0
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
8,774
Likes
2,646
Location
WNW of MHT
I'd like to know why none of Trump's campaign ads in FL, PA, MI, WI, and other swinger states haven't gone after this. Like, Trump goes up there and says "Protect your 2nd Amendment" (I do like how he says it's your 2nd Amendment, not the 2nd Amendment because it belongs to the people) but he doesn't get into specifics. Like, he speaks for 90 minutes and he can't lay out what all this means?
Disincentive is that Trump himself is squishy on 2A (bumpstocks, etc) and he already has the single issue pro-gun voters on his side.

I honestly doubt Donnie gives a single thought to firearms or the second amendment except for brief moments while he is actually on the phone with Wayne.

Magazines fall under no category of the NFA or GCA, so those are safe. The one gun a month rule is blatently unconstitutional and even if passed by Congress would be struck down.
That's the part nearly all the various FUD-spreading blogs/youtubers/etc gloss over -- they talk about Biden requiring a $200 tax for each standard capacity magazine, and ignore that there's no enabling law for this currently on the books.

View: https://youtu.be/dkYlQz7KPVE
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom