The next Dem prez should declare guns a national emergency and ban them

[Cyrano]

Trump has set the precedence. So what's to stop a Dem Prez from following in his footsteps?

[Freddie]

1. Not everyone has health care - national emergency!

Can’t live on minimum wage- national emergency!
They don’t know what a Pandora’s box they opened when we get back in power.

[dalton99a]

10. +1

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. That's exactly the point Nancy Pelosi was trying to make yesterday -

telling the GOPers to be careful what they wish for, because if a president can declare an emergency every time he doesn't get what he wants from Congress, someday a Dem president is going to declare an emergency about gun violence or climate change or health care.

[NewJeffCT]

3. I was going to say a national emergency for guns, but not quite as tough

1) Institute a gun buy back program with generous money for assault rifles and anything that can easily be converted to one
2) Unshackle the CDC and allow them to study gun violence
3) Ban high capacity magazines
4) Mandatory strict background checks with outright bans for domestic abuse - 10 year ban for one incident, lifetime ban for more than one incident

[TCJ70]

4. Nah...that's a constitutional right. But it could definitely have a good use in...

...making major steps forward in terms of climate change and healthcare.

[Cyrano]

8. Bullets aren't a constitutional right

Sooo, I guess they could be declared a "national emergency" and banned.

[The Genealogist]

5. Genie is out of the bottle now

If you don't get your way as president, just declare it a national emergency and do it anyway.

[Polybius]

6. Guns are constitutionally protected though, according to Heller vs. DC at least

A better example would be "The next Dem prez should declare plastic bags, cups, and straws a national emergency and ban them. That might not be a bad idea actually.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

7. Because it can't be done.

Declaring a national emergency doesn't give the President magical powers. All emergency powers that can be utilized is very specific. Confiscating guns isn't one of them.

What trump has done is set precedent to declare an emergency over anything. That's it. He is still stuck within the framework of the National Emergencies Act. And within that framework are about 135 specific statutes that he can use. The overwhelming majority of which are useless except for very specific circumstances as many of the emergency powers are geared towards responding to an imminent war or sudden attack.

[rogue emissary]

9. Looking forward to the U.N. black helicopters to come

And help confiscate all the guns.

[Garrett78]

11. Gun violence, climate change, systemic racism...those actually *are* emergencies.

But Dems aren't inclined to violate norms, and Republicans know it. So, they get to go on being unethical and downright evil. Why? Because they can.

[MH1]

12. Using this power to (try to) address Gunz would be a waste.

Dems would be thrown out of office very quickly if they tried that.

Oh, I support improved gun safety legislation, including things that most fierce proponents of RKBA would probably not like at all.

But I am speaking of the electoral reality. There's a lot of people in both parties who don't want too much gun regulation, and feel VERY strongly about it. It is something that is near and dear to them.

Some well-crafted initiatives to deal with climate change or homelessness would have a much better chance of being seen positively by the electorate. It could be done in a way that even if a person wasn't particularly supportive, it wouldn't be right in their face (or gun cabinet) in the same way as gun regulation, so they'd be more likely to overlook it at election time.

[Claritie Pixie]

13. NO. That's ridiculous and unconstitutional.

[safeinOhio]

14. OMG I read that SS and MC will run out of money...

Quick confiscate money from the rich.