Stuff like trying to make every rep payee a prohibited person, or trying to ban M855 ammo, or this:
The Hill - Obama’s parting shot against ammunition industry takes effect
It seems to me more likely to provide cause for additional legal arguments. What emergency power would he be doing this under, in your scenario?
“Traditional” lead ammunition? Is that like “traditional” marriage?
I already quoted the section of the US Code (19 USC 1318) that gives the Secretary of the Treasury (as big boss over the Customs Service) substantial power to rearrange the services of the ports of entry during times of declared national emergency. (Yes, Customs moved from Treasury to Homeland Security as part of the 2003 rearrangement; the reorganization act transferred to the Secretary of Homeland Security all functions relating to the customs service formerly exercised by the Treasury.)
While ATF is the one actually issuing the import permit, customs agents still have to process the shipment at the port of entry. Ending certain services at a given port is a power explicitly granted under this section, so the president and secretary would have the authority to say the service of processing such shipments is not going to be a service offered at Ports A, B, C … for the duration of the emergency, and it just so happens that list of ports of entry encompasses them all. As has been noted in other threads (including by you), an argument that the president doesn’t have the authority to declare a national emergency isn’t likely to win. What arguments are left? Would the courts try to micro-manage the government’s decisions as to what is “necessary” to the emergency?
Now on that one about lead you are grossly wrong, years of looking at that issue showed me that pseudoscience can also be used with gusto by the likes of the NRA towads denying for years that lead shot or bullets was causing harm not just to the proper game, but to wildlife in general in other ways.
As for the issue about the M855 ammo:
So, your sources lied to you, not a surprise really.
Huh, now, when I ask you to cite this, are you going to come up with something that shows what you said, or are you going to show that it is completely different from what you said?
I am aware that people who have been deemed too mentally incompetent to handle their most basic functions may be considered to be ineligible for a gun, but not only is this not “every rep payee”, but those that are caught in this, can apply to be removed, if they can show competence.
If someone is so severely mentally disabled that they are unable to make even the most basic decisions for themselves, then are we really going to trust them to be able to use a gun safely?
M855 ammo was exempted from laws against AP ammo long ago because it was only used in rifles. Then the gun manufacturers decided to make pistol style guns that could take it.
Blame the gun manufacturers for redefining the way the ammo was used, not the administration that acknowledge that the gun manufacturers had redefined how the ammo was used.
That’s not Obama’s fault, it is just something that happened while he was in office.
Yeah, that’s something that should have happened long ago. The amount of lead in our watersheds and wilderness areas is actually a problem, and will reduce the viability of those areas to remain places where you can hunt and fish.
How is this a parting shot at the ammo industry? People will still buy ammo, they will just not buy lead ammo for when they are hunting in these protected areas. there are other forms of ammo, and they are made by ammo manufacturers. Was removing lead from gasoline a parting shot to the oil companies?
I can see that there is stuff that will make you whine and whinge, but there is nothing in there that actually does as you described, just ridiculous distortions and exaggerations to try to make it seem as though the poor gun owner is so badly put upon. Why the distortion and exaggeration?
On a separate note, many hunters are moving away from “traditional” (i.e., lead) ammunition out of concern that it poisons the environment and can make the animal carcasses unsafe to eat. (Kids eating game bird meat contaminated with lead flecks is not remarkably different than kids eating lead paint flecks.) Something like thirty states* now regulate lead ammunition in at least some areas, so why is it all Mr. Obama’s fault?
*These include such liberal bastions as Kansas, Missouri, and Arizona.
Yes, but that would just result in pissing gun owners off, not in reducing violent crime.
Actually the ATF has little control over Gun owners, more over gun dealers. Unless you have a sawed off shotgun or something.
That’s more a pro environment issue, than a anti-gun issue, as plenty of non-lead shot is easily available.
Yeah, and all it did was ban a very tiny amount of ammo that was useless for hunting anyway. And Obama likely wasnt even consulted.
Sort of like the wall won’t do much to reduce drug trafficking?
Also, from a gun-control advocate’s standpoint, “pissing gun owners off” by reducing the number of guns available for sale is not really a bad thing, I don’t think.
No, Obama did try to make it so that anyone getting Soc Sec disability for mental issues would be unable to buy guns. However, that sort of disability covers a very wide range of mental issues , and it doesn’t necessarily mean “severely mentally disabled that they are unable to make even the most basic decisions for themselves”. I know a young person that gets that for PTSD. I would trust them with a gun.
It actually will, but not a lot.
See, that’s the issue. Do you want to reduce violent crime or piss gunowners off?
Remember, there are 100 Million gun owners in America, all of whom are old enuf to vote. 95 Million are not hard core, they dont belong to the NRA. 95M is more than voted for either Hillary or Trump.
Piss off the non-hardcore gun owners and you lose at the national level.
This is exactly what Kamala Harris did with her Microstamping gun ban.
Now I have to say here, and you already saw it and acknowledged it, that a lot of that “pissing off” was manufactured from misguided propaganda regarding the lead in bullets or the M855 ammo. While I do see that there can be a reason to being upset about micro stamping, by limiting some choices, a lot of that enraging is manufactured as it comes from the propaganda that denies their readers or viewers about what technology can actually do.
Restricting the supply of new guns should have the long-term effect of reducing violent crime, by making fewer guns available to criminals. Pissing off at least some gunowners is an inevitable side-effect of any kind of gun control.
That is a substantial exaggeration. Most estimates (see, e.g., here) are that about a third of American adults live in a household that owns one or more guns, and fewer than a quarter personally own a gun (both numbers in long-term decline). That is more like 45-50 million gun-owners. More than half own only one or two guns; they’re not active purchasers, so limiting one particular source of brand-new guns is not likely to be THE dominating issue in elections to them, to the exclusion of the economy and healthcare and defense and immigration and all of the rest (particularly since these are foreign guns, so get mixed up in issues of free trade and outsourcing manufacturing anyway).
The people who are really passionate about gun issues are the hard core, the three percent of the population who own eight or more weapons. Most of those people, if they vote at all, are already firmly in the Republican camp.
No, the rule was people receiving disability for mental issues who had been deemed incompetent to manage their financial affairs and therefore had a representative payee. Plenty of people with mental issues handle their own affairs; the rule applied to the subset who had been deemed incapable of handling money and therefore had to have a payee to make sure the bills got paid. If you’ve got a payee, your payee controls your benefits; it’s similar to a legal conservatorship.
In fact, the relevant quote from SSA’s program operations manual for determining a beneficiary’s capability versus needing a representative payee is
Are you seriously arguing that a person who appears disoriented or can’t communicate properly ought to be toting a firearm?
Well, to be fair, this is in response to Trump’s declaring a national emergency in order to build a wall, which will just result nin pissing off liberals, land owners, and pretty much anyone that’s not a xenophobe, and not reduce illegal immigration.
Effectiveness is not necessary.
How do we know if you have a sawed off shotgun unless we ask?
Slash2k covered this pretty well and I have nothing that I could productively add to his address of this point, but I would like to ask you about your friend with PTSD. I have a friend who was in the army and came back with a PTSD diagnosis, and she has no problem getting a gun. Why is your friend different?
Yeah “the Inventor” came up with a patent then released it. It was a ploy. Every gun manufacturer sez it isnt feasible. Totally bogus.
The lead ban was perfectly reasonable. Needed, even.
The M855 ammo had nothing to do with Obama, and banned almost no ammo at all, and after a public outcry they rolled it back.
There are 300 million guns in the USA. A few less of new imported models wont do anything. useless.
Yes, 30% of American households REPORTED owning a gun. When they added in "refusers’ ( but not respondents who simply lied, as many would) it came to 35%. That more than 1/3 of Americans or 100 Million.
CNN estimates much higher:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/politics/guns-dont-know-how-many-america/index.html1.* We don’t know how many people own guns
There is no countrywide database where people register whether they own guns (the law doesn’t allow it). We have to rely on surveys instead. High quality telephone polls from Gallup and the Pew Research Center in 2017 found that 42% of people in the US live in households with guns. According to the General Social Survey, which has a much higher response rate than telephone polls and interviews people in person, a relatively lower 32% of Americans said in 2016 that they lived in household with guns. The gap between telephone and GSS surveys has existed in some form for 20 years, so it isn’t just a one-off difference.
It’s not clear which datasets are more correct. The GSS, with its high response rate, is generally thought of as the gold standard survey in understanding social trends in America. It is conceivable, though, that people may not want to admit to owning guns to people who are standing in front of them.* Read that last one again:that people may not want to admit to owning guns to people who are standing in front of them.
and this: *According to the 2017 Pew study, 30% of Americans own guns themselves (12 points lower than the 42% who live in households with guns). For Gallup, it was 29% (13 points lower than the 42% who live in households with guns). *
Again, around 100 million.
and they arent all Pubbies:In the 2017 Pew data, for example, there was a 25 percentage point gap between the Democrats (16%) who owned guns and the Republicans (41%) who did. That’s far smaller than the 80 point difference between how many Democrats (8%) and Republicans (88%) voted for Trump in the 2016 exit poll.
Additionally, the racial gap on gun ownership is smaller than you might expect. According to Pew, 24% of blacks own guns and 36% of whites do. In the 2016 presidential election, Trump won 57% of white voters compared with just 8% of blacks.
and from your cite: “Household and Personal Firearm Ownership:
■ Do you happen to have in your home (IF HOUSE: or garage) any guns or revolvers?
■ IF YES: Is it a pistol, shotgun, rifle, or what? CODE ALL THAT APPLY.
■ Do any of these guns personally belong to you?”
Note that if a person owned a gun but didnt keep it at home, he’d answer **No. **
Honestly, if a poll taker came to my door and asked “Do you have any guns* here in the house”? I’d shut the door on him.
- or anything else valuable can come rob tonite after my crappy minimum wage job?
There are many reasons for asking for such a receivership, such as not trusting a caretaker with funds. if we dont want people with mental issues owning guns, then take them to a judge, and using Due Process- the American way- declare them so. Anything that doesnt use Due Process is bogus. And that’s not just my opinion, it is the opinion of the ACLU.
Effectiveness is necessary, since we, as opposed to trumpists, are rational. Well, more rational. 
Someone reports you.
She wouldn’t (and mine is a female also, oddly) but she might under that law. In fact she has her disability go to her guardians (where she lives), because her abusive ex tried to steal it. She does own one handgun, bought to protect her from that ex. That law might have taken it away.