Your predictions for a Biden presidency and guns

[MillCreek]

If Mr. Biden is elected, what do you think will happen with guns? Mandated surrender of modern sporting rifles? Federal waiting periods or purchase limits? Bans on silencers?

[WLJ]

Do they also get the senate in this?
If yes then Harris will declare that as a mandate to go for it. Hopefully enough Ds will get cold feet to jam it up somewhat.
If not as long as the Rs stay firm on the matter, yeah I know, then her hands will be mostly tied.

[Ben]

Lots of variables, most importantly house and senate control. Without both houses:

Kiss imports goodbye.
Not sure what he could do with making ammo purchases difficult, but he'll try.
Can suppressors be controlled through EO? If so, that's an easy win.

With both houses:

I just don't see outright "Beto" confiscation. I think the dem handlers know where that leads.
Some kind of assault weapons / mag ban though.
The "one gun a month" thing.
Plus the stuff he could do by EO and likely more.

[HankB]

If the Harris/Biden administration also has the Senate and House, they'll try to add everything semi-automatic with a detachable magazine to the NFA registry, with a limited grace period to get your tax stamp for each item you own. (And don't expect the tax stamp to stay at "only" $200.) They probably won't go for outright confiscation . . . at first. But look for a lot of problems at the state level in places that already restrict current NFA items like suppressors and non-C&R full autos.

Without both houses, most of the mischief will be limited to import-related items, since the Executive Branch has broad powers there . . . so long as the GOP stands firm.

[Ron]

Not going to happen.

[Boomhauer]

If they get the senate it will be like what they did in VA

I ain’t registering *expletive deleted*it or turning in *expletive deleted*it.

[Lennyjoe]

Will SCOTUS protect us any if POTUS and Senate go to Dems?

[WLJ]

Will SCOTUS protect us any if POTUS and Senate go to Dems?

Any thing the SC could do would be in cases brought to the SC and this could take months or years. The dems could in that time enact a such a mountain of legislation that it could decades to undo one case at a time. The dems wet dream of overturning The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act alone could do irreparable damage in a matter of months. The SC stopping that months or years later would be like putting out the fire that burnt the house down months ago.

[Jim147]

I think if they try to do much it will look like the vote after th AWB. And without term limits many dems remember what happened.

[MillCreek]

I am most concerned about the Executive Orders.

[WLJ]

I am most concerned about the Executive Orders.

I could be wrong but hopefully Trump has put enough pro 2A fed judges in place to keep any Harris issued EOs tied up in knots for a while

[RocketMan]

If the Senate goes Democrat as projected, the first thing Biden Harris will do is pack the SCOTUS with leftist "The Constitution is a living document" judges.  After that the Democrats can make all of their gun control dreams come true.

[bedlamite]

It's more than just guns. Biden will probably go along with the great reset:

https://www.weforum.org/great-reset

[WLJ]

If the Senate goes Democrat as projected, the first thing Biden Harris will do is pack the SCOTUS with leftist "The Constitution is a living document" judges.  After that the Democrats can make all of their gun control dreams come true.

Justices can only be replaced as they retire or died off. This why getting Barrett in is so important.
Increasing the number of justices on the court would require a constitutional amendment which would have to be called for by 2/3 of both houses or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures and then it would have to be approved by 3/4 of the states. Good luck with that even if they win everything.

[RocketMan]

Justices can only be replaced as they retire or died off.
Increasing the number of justices on the court would require a constitutional amendment which would have to be called for by 2/3 of both houses or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures and then it would have to be approved by 3/4 of the states. Good luck with that even if they win everything.

Actually, no.  The Congress can increase the size of the Supreme Court through legislative means.  All it takes is a simple majority vote in both houses.
The Constitution establishes the court, but says nothing about its size.

[bedlamite]

Justices can only be replaced as they retire or died off.
Increasing the number of justices on the court would require a constitutional amendment which would have to be called for by 2/3 of both houses or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures and then it would have to be approved by 3/4 of the states. Good luck with that even if they win everything.

You might want to do a little more research on that one. The number of justices is not in the constitution, it's in the Judiciary act of 1789, which leaves that to congress:

https://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/judiciary.html

[WLJ]

Okay, I stand corrected. I was thinking it required an A

[RocketMan]

Okay, I stand corrected

It's too bad that your original statement was incorrect.  In my not so humble opinion, we would have been better off if the court's size was set in the COTUS.  It would have made the court more resistant to political manipulation of the type the Democrats are planning.

[WLJ]

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx

Who decides how many Justices are on the Court? Have there always been nine?

The Constitution places the power to determine the number of Justices in the hands of Congress. The first Judiciary Act, passed in 1789, set the number of Justices at six, one Chief Justice and five Associates. Over the years Congress has passed various acts to change this number, fluctuating from a low of five to a high of ten. The Judiciary Act of 1869 fixed the number of Justices at nine and no subsequent change to the number of Justices has occurred.

[WLJ]

It's too bad that your original statement was incorrect.  In my not so humble opinion, we would have been better off if the court's size was set in the COTUS.  It would have made it more resistant to political manipulation of the type the Democrats are planning.

Not the first time someone has wanted to mess with it. I remember reading about this before but didn't remember the details

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937

The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937,[1] frequently called the "court-packing plan",[2] was a legislative initiative proposed by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt to add more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court in order to obtain favorable rulings regarding New Deal legislation that the Court had ruled unconstitutional.[3] The central provision of the bill would have granted the president power to appoint an additional justice to the U.S. Supreme Court, up to a maximum of six, for every member of the court over the age of 70 years and 6 months.

[Perd Hapley]

It's too bad that your original statement was incorrect.  In my not so humble opinion, we would have been better off if the court's size was set in the COTUS.  It would have made the court more resistant to political manipulation of the type the Democrats are planning.

Now THAT would be a good amendment.

[sumpnz]

If Biden-Harris win, and they have both houses under D control, I would expect something like a new AWB before they tried to make sporting guns fall under NFA rules.  Especially if they don’t/can’t pack SCOTUS.  They’d get pimp slapped by expedited scotus rulings if they went that far, with just the current 9 justice count.

[Ben]

Now THAT would be a good amendment.

Agree. Nine is an ideal number.

Back to gun stuff, One thing I'd be curious about is how individual states would fall in line. There are a decent number of states that might be inclined to tell fed.gov to get bent. For instance with an AWB, last time everyone fell in line, but I could now easily see at least a half dozen states saying "will not comply" if we got one this time around. I would be curious about the repercussions (such as freezing federal money).

[cordex]

Joe wanted to weigh in on this thread:

It’s long past time we take action to end the scourge of gun violence in America.

As president, I’ll ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, implement universal background checks, and enact other common-sense reforms to end our gun violence epidemic.

[TommyGunn]

   ....... Back to gun stuff, One thing I'd be curious about is how individual states would fall in line. There are a decent number of states that might be inclined to tell fed.gov to get bent. For instance with an AWB, last time everyone fell in line, but I could now easily see at least a half dozen states saying "will not comply" if we got one this time around. I would be curious about the repercussions (such as freezing federal money).

  I'm more curious how We, the People, react than the states ....