Fact check: Could a President Beto O'Rourke confiscate assault weapons?

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Former Rep. Beto O'Rourke of Texas has made his position on assault weapons crystal clear. "Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47," O'Rourke said during Thursday's Democratic presidential debate. "We're not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore."

To accomplish this, O'Rourke has proposed a mandatory confiscation of these guns whereby individuals would be compensated for their firearms.

Beyond the thorny politics of this proposal, it raises clear legal and logistical questions, including whether a president has the authority to confiscate people's guns.

Facts First: A president could not issue a blanket confiscation of so-called assault weapons, but they could work with Congress to pass such a law. Constitutionally speaking, that law would likely run into some significant legal trouble.

First, some basic facts. The National Rifle Association has estimated that there are somewhere between 8.5 million and 15 million assault rifles in the US, the organization told McClatchy in 2018. That's about 2% to 4% of all the estimated guns in the US, but it's unclear how many guns would ultimately fall under an assault weapons confiscation.

Part of that has to do with the fuzzy definition of what qualifies as an assault weapon, which can sometimes be based on cosmetic features like a folding stock or an additional handgrip on a rifle.

In 1994, assault weapons were banned from being manufactured but the law did not call for the confiscation of those already in private ownership. That assault weapons ban expired in 2004 and was not renewed under the George W. Bush administration.

O'Rourke's plan, however, not only would include a ban on all sales of so-called assault weapons but also would require owners to sell these guns to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, something the US government has never done before.

-more-

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/factcheck/fact-check-could-a-president-beto-orourke-confiscate-assault-weapons/ar-AAHidgT?li=BBnb7Kz

[Mr.Bill]

1. You can not make people give up their guns.

You can, however, make them wish they had.

[Hoyt]

4. Exactly. Plus we can keep another 10 million from being made and sold in next decade.

[Kaleva]

5. As shown by how effective the war on drugs has been

By making penalties for possession and/or use of certain drugs very severe, illegal drug use was wiped out decades ago.

[Mr.Bill]

7. Well, as long as we are comparing things that have little to do with each other,

a lot of people thought Governor Gavin Newsom was crazy when he (as San Francisco Mayor) performed a same sex marriage at city hall, too. Times change, and some people are just more ahead of it than others.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-gavin-newsom-gay-marriage-20180515-story.html

[Kaleva]

8. There used to be severe legal consequences to being gay.

One could end up in prison for it. People thought that if the penalties were severe enough, the gays would go away.

The national Firearms Act of 1934 is effective as the great majority of people, including gun owners, accept it. Only a very small minority want total access to selective fire and fully automatic weapons. And as the law stands right now, if the average law abiding citizen wants a machine gun, they can legally buy one.

[Mr.Bill]

9. It kept them from "open-carrying" their sexual preference for may years, though, didn't it?

See the link I just put in my previous post. Good article about being ahead of the times.

[Kaleva]

12. But it didn't stop them from being in the closet.

Banning certain semi-automatics will just make large numbers of gun owners hide their guns in the closet.

Maybe you are more against open carry of such weapons? As long as the gun owner keeps their guns out of sight, then you are okay with ownership.

[Mr.Bill]

14. No, I am not for ownership of said weapons.

That's why I hope Beto is a man ahead of the times, not a man making a political blunder.

[Kaleva]

15. Fair enough.

[Mr.Bill]

16. And I thank you for the sane and enlightning conversation.

That can be hard to find on the internet sometimes, except here.

[Mr.Bill]

10. Pretty difficult to buy a machine gun in my state. n/t

[Kaleva]

11. It's easy in Michigan where I live.

[Runningdawg]

2. No. Door to door confiscation is not possible any more than nationwide martial law.

[tirebiter]

3. Another hit from the past that needs to be reviewd

The Assault Weapons Ban passed in 1994.

[FBaggins]

13. It only blocked new manufacturing of covered weapons

It didn’t confiscate them or even keep people from buying a used one.

[tirebiter]

17. The important thing is passed

And massacres happened less often while it was law. The primary purpose has to be to lower the number of casualties and understand that number will never be 0. This is a congressional matter, anyway

[elleng]

6. No, as pointed out by Lawrence O'Donnell (last night, I think,)

but he's got us talking.

It takes more than a President to accomplish many things (think 'Obama Care,) but Presidents can set the pace.

[Thomas Hurt]

18. outright confiscation will not work...

pass the assault weapons ban again, background checks on all purchases, licensing, and have a voluntary buy back is the closest you are going to get.