[grislyatoms]

Obviously keeping another AWB from happening, but beyond that:

Nationwide CCW?
Repealing the '86(?) machine gun ban?
Repealing the imported rifle ban?

just wondering what you folks think should be worked on next.

[jeff-10]

Nationwide CCW is probably next on the NRAs to do list. I would kind of like to see states with there own strict gun laws worked on, like California and NJ. If the Republicans do as well as many analysts seem to think they will do in November then the sky is the limit in getting rid of foolish gun laws.

[Pebcac]

My vote would be for nationwide CCW, but the Senate will never let that happen, and forget repeal of the 1986 law for the same reason. IMHO, the option in the list that's most viable is allowing imports again.

Edited to correct a keystroke error.

[Chris Rhines]

Tough to say.

What we probably will see - nationwide CCW.
What I'd like to see - repeal of GCA'68.

- Chris

[mrapathy2000]

Executive Orders,1989 import and sporting arms crud. 1986 would be awesome.

[PMDW]

86, 68, 89, 34. In that order. :)

[Foreign Devil]

THe import ban makes a good target. There's no difference between the imported & domestically made guns. I just don't think Bush is up to it though. Maybe if he wins reelection he can quietly do it, if enough of us convince him that it would be worth his while. Maybe.

As far as laws go: I think we could make a good case to ease restrictions on silencers, in the name of reducing noise pollution and hearing protection. I mean think of the children!

[Lone_Gunman]

If the Republicans do as well as many analysts seem to think they will do in November then the sky is the limit in getting rid of foolish gun laws.



Hmmm...

[CleverNickname]

The import ban was only able to be put into effect because the 1968 GCA allows them to restrict guns from being imported based on their "sporting use". Get rid of the "sporting use" provision and you get rid of one way to restrict imports.

Another good idea that I would like see enacted is the ability to carry in National Parks. Just have them follow the laws of the state they're in, just like National Forests currently do. AFAIK, this wouldn't even require a law to be passed, it could be enacted via executive order.

[armoredman]

86, 68, 89, 34. In that order.

Perfect.:cool:

[Justin]

National CCW reciprocity would be nice, and certainly a worthy goal.

However, I'd like to float an idea. For a moment, put yourself in the mindset of a politically and idealogically neutral fence-sitter with an open mind- not one of us, but not a raving, slobbering at the mouth gun-grabbing anti.

_____

Ok, ready?


Would you support repealing a law that could help to reduce significant medical costs in the United States at no cost to the taxpayers?

How about a law that would help to foster good will between rural sportsmen and those who are now living in suburbs that are continually expanding into formerly rural areas?

Do I have your attention?
Good.

_______

I propose that the regulations on sound suppressors as embodied in the National Firearms Act of 1934 should be repealed, and that suppressors should be just as legal to put on a firearm as a telescopic scope is on a hunting rifle, or custom grips on a dedicated target pistol.

After all, federal law mandates that you must have a muffler on your car, so why should putting one on a firearm be any different?

There are no statistics that show that criminals used suppressors before they were banned in 1934 as part of the media-hyped, governmental over-reaction to the violence that erupted as a result of the Volstead Act and Prohibition.

I submit that this regulation is a relic of a bygone era- the time of Prohibition, Jim Crow, and a distinct knowledge gap with regard to scientific understanding of the causes of permanent hearing loss.

In the 1930's no one knew that loud sounds caused permanent, irreversible hearing damage. Nowadays such ignorance is laughable. Research has shown that repeated exposure to sounds louder than 85 decibels cause irreversible damage to the delicate structure of the inner ear. Gunshots regularly exceed 100 decibels. America has a rich heritage of hunting and competitive shooting that is not about to go away. Why should those who choose to engage in these activities be unfairly penalized with hearing loss? Why should the public be expected to, in many cases, pick up the tab? Certainly there are forms of hearing protection available such as ear plugs and muffs, but why should the American sports enthusiast be denied the use of yet another tool to protect his or her hearing?

Beyond the hearing safety of the firearms user is the standard of living of those around him or her. The American population is growing at a prodigious rate. The resulting urban sprawl has seen the rapid development of much land that was once nearly unpopulated countryside. This has given rise to many contentious and unpleasant confrontations between formerly rural residents and their newly arrived suburbanized neighbors. In nearly every state in the nation, private shooting clubs as well as individuals who safely and legally shoot on their own private property have come under fire for annoying their neighbors. This gives rise to a prickly situation: whose rights are more important? Those of shooting clubs or land owners who were there before urban sprawl brought new neighbors to them, or the neighbors who simply wish to live without being continually submitted to the sound of nearby gunfire? The authors of the 1934 law could hardly have forseen such a development, and it is a travesty that we in the early 21st century must deal with the unintended consequences of their shortsightedness.

An argument could be made that criminals would choose to use suppressors in order to gain an advantage. However this is unlikely. Suppressors are much more prevalent and available in many European nations and they don't seem to have a problem with it. Besides, criminals tend to spend as little on their weapons as possible. It is highly unlikely that they will be willing to pay several hundred dollars on the modifications needed to mount a sound suppressor as well as the suppressor itself. On top of this, even the most compact suppressors are several inches long, which renders the weapon nearly impossible to conceal for criminal purposes.

Deregulating firearm sound suppressors is a wise idea both as a public health issue and one of general civility.
While this ban may have had some legitimacy in the early 20th century, times have changed. We now know that extremely loud sounds can cause permanent hearing damage. Urban sprawl has led to confrontations between newly arrived residents and those who were there first, and chose to use the land for sporting purposes. Many countries in Europe such as Norway do not regulate suppressors, and their use is encouraged as a form of good manners. Criminals are unlikely to use them because they are bulky and costly. Mufflers are required on many machines used by us every day. Why should their use on firearms be omitted because of an antiquated law?

_______

Ok, I typed all of that off the top of my head, and it ended up a lot longer than I anticipated. However, I'd be curious to know if my arguments come across as logical to someone who is only a passively interested third party? Do the points I have made seem rational to the average person, or do they come across as yet another crazy idea from a gun-toting redneck psychopath? I deliberately avoided making references to the use of suppressors in self-defense and lethal force encounters because it's too easy to then accuse the pro-rights person of being a Rambo-wannabe. (This, of course, does not change the fact that I don't think we should have to trade our hearing for the right to defend our homes and loved ones with the most effective means available.)

I believe that if presented in a modest, middle of the road fashion, the arguments for the deregulation of sound suppressors are far and away much more compelling than the arguments against them. Personally, I think we are unlikely to repeal the requirement to fill out a 4473 or possess a post-'86 machinegun, but that if presented as a public health issue to the right legislators we could get this part of the NFA repealed.

Thoughts?

[tyme]

Justin, here's a rough draft:

A Bill:
To remove regulation on an important safety item, firearm suppressors

Section 100 - Remove firearm suppressors from the definition of a firearm
a) Strike 18 U.S.C. 921 (a)(3)(C), then rename (a)(3)(d) as (a)(3)(C) for continuity.

Section 101 - Remove the misleading federal definition of the term "silencer"
a) Remove (a)(24) and renumber (a)(35) as (a)(24).

Section 102 - Remove longer federal sentences for crimes committed with "silencers"
a) To get rid of federal penalty enhancements for criminals using silencers, edit (sub)sections of 18 USC 924 to read as follows:
(c)(1)(B)(ii) is a destructive device, the person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 30 years.

(c)(1)(C)(ii) if the firearm involved is a destructive device, be sentenced to imprisonment for life.

(o)A person who conspires to commit an offense under subsection (c) shall be imprisoned for not more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both; and if the firearm is a destructive device, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or life


Section 200 - Alteration of sentencing for past offenses
a) In accord with Calder v. Bull (1798) and Weaver v Graham (1981), any person convicted of possession of an unlicensed firearm silencer shall have that conviction and portion of his or her sentence stricken.
-------------

Once a silencer is not classified as a firearm, I think that means it can't be regulated in the CFR as a NFA item because doing so would exceed the scope of the BATFE's authority.

I think section 200 might be unnecessary, but since it doesn't change the U.S. Code I don't see any harm in including it.

(shh... the above removes the penalty enhancements for machineguns as well as silencers... did anyone notice?)

[The Rabbi]

Excellent arguments for ending the restrictions on suppressors. At the very least they should be treated no differently than the handgun itself.

As far as lifestyle issues go, the most worthwhile to me would be nationwide CCW. If my driver's license and my marriage license are good in all 50 states then why shouldnt my CCW be as well?
Second to that are regs allowing CCW on airplanes. At least *something* better than what is done now which is a regulatory nightmare out of Catch-22.
Ending the ban on manufacture of machine guns would be nice but I amnot going to start carrying one one no matter what. Ending bans on imports is just good free trade.
I wont choose: I WANT IT ALL!

[cdpruden]

86, 68, 89, 34. In that order.

If 68 goes, 89 goes with it. No need for a seperate action. Sounds good to me.

[VaniB.]

DREAM ON!! The days of Teddy Roosevelt are gone forever.

This country's demographics is radically changing. NOT for the better. We've got a quickly increasing spanish population. Add the blacks, orientals, jews and dumb white crackers, and what you have is anything but a 50% majority on pro gun questions. The best we can hope for is to simply keep what we have! (That's a tough enough accomplishment!)

It is only because George W. and the Republican Congress were required to DO NOTHING except look the other way, and allow the sunset to happen during this election season, is the reason why we're getting back our ugly black rifles for a little while longer. Don't think it was something that our President and congress really wanted to do. If they had to lift a finger, you'd still have the damn ban! And don't think this sunset is going to last.

:rolleyes: ....machine guns, silencers? Please, get real. Why don't you ask for Dinamite at your corner general store too while your at it!

[Muzzleflash]

That's us Jews for ya, always trying to steal you good ol' boys guns.

[luke ford]

This country's demographics is radically changing. NOT for the better. We've got a quickly increasing spanish population. Add the blacks, orientals, jews and dumb white crackers, and what you have is anything but a 50% majority on pro gun questions. The best we can hope for is to simply keep what we have! (That's a tough enough accomplishment!)

I'm a republican,pro-gun, I own a gun,and I'm hispanic.

[Ironbarr]

I'd probably not own one - even if they were reasonably priced. So maybe I fit your parameters.The authors of the 1934 law could hardly have forseen such a development, and it is a travesty that we in the early 21st century must deal with the unintended consequences of their shortsightedness.This speaks to one of my several pet peeves: old laws.

I believe that legislation - at any level - should have a required formal review for its "currency" for the times and a firm sunset date. Example: A total ban against a certain current medical procedure. 20 years down the road there's new evidence that that procedure actually works. You can visualize other examples. Some measures are short term, appropriations, for instance; they die every year.

What we don't need is a bunch of "set and forget" laws - except the Constitution, of course.

If the 86, 68, 89, 34 acts had limited durations, they (or some of their details) may have been cleared by now, probably after some "discussion activity" by folks like us on this AWB subject.

BTW: That "discussion activity" could be put to work on these items to jin up a repeal. Our next full-bore effort?

-Andy

[Steve in PA]

I'll go along with the National CCW being next of the hit parade.

[outofbattery]

I can easily see another AWB - a permanent and far more strict one at that - within the next 4-6 years . I don't see nationwide CCW until every state has a CCW law and that's unlikely ; it is what I would be hoping for most . As for legalizing any more full auto guns ? Forget about it ; if you think semi-automatic weapons get people into a tizzy , wait until they'd start taking about machineguns flooding the streets on the news . At the first whiff of it you'd see many a "pro-gun" pol turn tail and support for it among average gun owners would be very,very low .

[PMDW]

if you think semi-automatic weapons get people into a tizzy , wait until they'd start taking about machineguns flooding the streets

But there is the beauty of it! Many people already think that the AWB covers machine guns. I believe this helps to show how much oppisition there would be to repealing the 1986 and 1934 bans. If Feinstein and the Brady Group are already making people think that "assault weapons" are machine guns, there is not much else they could tell them about the 86/34 bans being repealed. While obviosuly, it is by no means an exact portrayal, I believe it gives somewhat of an idea as to how difficult it would be. I do expect it to be more difficult than the AWB expiration, however.

I believe that the 1986 problem could be taken care of by promoting it as a bill to require gun registration. Which is not a lie at all, it would once again allow individual people to register automatic weapons. I expect to see at the very least the 86 ban repealed within my life time, and I expect that I will have something to do with it being done away with.

[WilderBill]

One thing is for sure; we have momentum on our side with the end of the AWB and we need to use it to our advantage.
I think a national CCW or at least recognition of one from any state in all other states would be a beginninig.

As it is, a Texan, who has no problem with concealed carry here, cannot carry in NY.
So how come folks from NY can come down here and legally drive?

(I'm not picking on anyone, here, just trying to make a point.)

[Mike128]

VaniB,
Just to fill in with the rest. I'm ASIAN, (oriental is an object not a person) republican, and own guns. My relatives in the TX's areas are the same. My relatives in NY are the same. If anything they have more respect for this countries freedoms than most citizens since they had to experience communism.
As another note. Japanese, Chinese, Korean and other asian nationalities are not the same. Our cultures are as different as American and Russia.
To keep this on topic I vote for silencers. I have land that was in the country but there are now a lot of horse owners around my land. I would like to keep shooting and keep on good terms with them. A silencer would let me do that. However, the public has a deep fear of silencers since they are another evil features seen in the movies. So I guess we should push for the import ban removal.

[carp killer]

The import ban was only able to be put into effect because the 1968 GCA allows them to restrict guns from being imported based on their "sporting use". Get rid of the "sporting use" provision and you get rid of one way to restrict imports.


That is a good idea. I have always wondered what "sporting use" meant. And who makes that determination? Is it an ELECTED official? Or some Anti-gun minion? Where in the Second Amendment does it mention "sporting use"? :scrutiny:

[The Rabbi]

We've got a quickly increasing spanish population. Add the blacks, orientals, jews and dumb white crackers, and what you have is anything but a 50% majority on pro gun questions.

I wonder how much of the THR population is made up of "blacks, orientals, jews [sic] and dumb white crackers."

The Conservative movement used to be made up of know-nothings and troglodytes like this. On the other end were the Main St Republicans like Nelson Rockefeller. Between William F. Buckley and Ronald Reagan the movement got rid of both undesirable elements. Most wealthy people today are Democrats, as are most poor people. The middle class is largely Republican.
I think the issue is more urbanization, with more people living in cities there is less familiarity with guns (and costs of ownership and use are much higher) and thus less understanding about them. We need better communication.

[El Tejon]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, move suppressors to Title I!

Do it . . . ready? . . . wait for it . . . FOR THE CHILDREN!;)

BTW, VaniB., so, I guess you say the anti-immigration policies have nothing to do with race either?:D

[warmi]

"Add the blacks, orientals, jews and dumb white crackers, and what you have is anything but a 50% majority on pro gun questions."


A crude way to put it but ,essentially it is the truth.

According to recent polls, about 75% of Jews will be voting for Kerry even with everything Bush has done for the state of Israel.

Blacks - we all know how they are going to vote.
Hispanics are heavily leaning towards liberals as well.
I don't know much about "orientals" but I presume they lean democratic as well.

Yeah, there are Blacks and Hispanics and others who are fervently pro-Gun but the sad truth is that that great majority of them would have no problem supporting outright bans on ownership of firearms and since their numbers are growing, the original poster was pretty much correct.
Things are not looking well for us.

Sad but true.

[warmi]

Duplicate [removed]

[io333]

I've noticed that in the last 10 years, pro-gunners come from all the various groups in numbers more or less equal to their proportion... except for asians -- It seems asians are more likely to be pro-gun than anyone. Especially Koreans. Tell me you haven't met a Korean guy with so many lasers, wires, lights, buttons and who knows what else hanging off their stuff you can't even figure out what the firearm underneath it all is supposed to be.


Sure, 20 years ago, it was all white guys with blued revolvers. Not anymore.

[io333]

http://www.hartford.co.jp/laser/images/m1m.jpg




http://www.hartford.co.jp/laser/images/rf4f1m.jpg

[Jrob24]

Has everyone forgotten the junk lawsuit preemtion bill. It almost has enough votes to pass the Senate and it can pass if the (R) leadership doesn't allow the antis to poison pill it.

[Foreign Devil]

Brilliant!

I believe that the 1986 problem could be taken care of by promoting it as a bill to require gun registration. Which is not a lie at all, it would once again allow individual people to register automatic weapons.

Absolute brilliance!

Call it the "Machine Gun Registration Act of 200_".

Do it for the children!

[Ironbarr]

Stealing from the CO of troops at Bastogne... Nuts!


.

[VaniB.]

Thank you Warmi,

Folks, it's got nothing to do with being a bigot or a racist. It's just a matter of looking at the hard facts the way they are and realizing that the minorities as a whole do not vote Republican, and the traditional caucasion base that this country was founded on is also steadilly thinning torward liberalism. The caucasion population of Texas recently became a minority. Yet, this is always the vast majority of attendees at Houston Gun shows. There are very few blacks or hispanics to be seen there. This is not a surprise; Do you see a lot of people of color at NRA sponsored events, or at a Republican fund raiser, meeting, or convention either?

This doesn't mean that there aren't hard core 2nd amendment Hipanics and Blacks that carry NRA membership cards and vote Republican. It just means they are far and few, and their growing population will eventually lead to the demise of the conservative Republican party (the phenomenah as is currently in effect) and eventual loss of the 2nd amendment rights. All it takes is a small percentage of the liberal caucasion population to vote Democrat with them, and voila!...today's tight races for the survival of simple RINO's are what you have.


VaniB.
(AKA Jackass :neener: )

[jeff-10]

Wow the pessimism of some people never ceases to amaze me. VaniB were you one of the guys a year ago who swore up and down that there was no way the AWB would be allowed to sunset?

Now the same naysayers who swore that it would be renewed, are absolutley positive there will be a new one next year that will be even worse than the original. I would like the political geniuses out there to explain how they will manage to "sneak" through a law in a firmly Republican Congress that the NRA would be sure to propose. Just remember back to 94 when the Democrats were at the height of there power and barely managed to get it passed.

The US has been moving steadily to the right over the past 10 years or so and that trend is expected to continue for the forseeable future. Much to the dismay of the rest of the world.

[luke ford]

originally posted by VaniB.
Folks, it's got nothing to do with being a bigot or a racist. It's just a matter of looking at the hard facts the way they are and realizing that the minorities as a whole do not vote Republican

here's the problem,minorities do not vote as a whole.just took a couple of minutes to prove my point-a quick search on google shows that things are changing for the better.
and you better get used to the idea of a minority GOP because in 50 years 1 in 4 Americans will be hispanic.

Four years ago, one of the most important factors in Bush's success was his ability to capture a larger portion of the Hispanic vote than his Republican predecessors.Although Bush lost the popular vote by 500,000, his much stronger Hispanic vote helped him carry Florida and Arizona, both of which were essential to his Electoral College victory.



Back to the Sailer/Brimelow "failure" of the Republican Party in this election.... look at the county by county election results and see how Bush carried all but 20 counties in Texas, winning in almost a hundred, including counties with substantial Mexican American votes. In California, Bush carried the heavily Mexican American counties in the Central Valley, including Fresno County. In Washington State, Bush carried the Yakima valley with its 100,000 Mexican Americans. Bush has made liars of many, many people.
http://www.calnews.com/Archives/contreras46.htm



In New York, Gov. George Pataki has worked hard at attracting Hispanic voters. It paid off. In November, Gov. Pataki increased the percentage of Hispanics who chose to cast their ballot for him from 25 percent four years ago to 38 percent. And these votes come from a community rich in Puerto Rican, Dominican and South American voters.



Democrats must step up the courting of Hispanics who have voted Republican in recent years or risk losing this year's presidential election, states a Democratic campaign strategy memorandum.
In a surprisingly frank analysis of the political challenges their party faces this year in the largest and fastest-growing minority voter group, Democrats were told that Hispanic immigrants do not have the same loyalty to the Democratic Party that second- and third-generation Hispanic voters have; that President Bush and his brother, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, are seen as especially popular among the voting bloc; and that the president only needs to increase his Hispanic vote by a few percentage points to win re-election.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040215-123402-9511r.htm

[Justin]

Wow.

VaniB, let's assume for a moment that statistically you're right. That most ethnic minorities tend to lean anti.

With an attitude like yours, no wonder they don't want to come to the range.

No wonder they aren't interested in becoming educated about RKBA issues with rhetoric like yours.


In short, way to go. You may very well be right. I hope it feels good, because you have single-handedly brought the positive, pro-active ideas for the next steps in RKBA espoused in this thread to a screeching halt.

Fan-freaking-tastic.

Really, cheers. I hope you're proud.


:barf:

[jefnvk]

I don't think national CCW is the way to go. Right now, it is working itself out to be that, anyway. Why mess with something thats working (except for the holdout states)

Right now, I am in favor of getting rid of the import ban. That, and changing handgun buying age from a FFL fro 21 to 18. Why should I be able to buy it off some guy on the street, but not subject myself to a background check getting it from the dealer?

[MrAcheson]

First step? BUY NEW GUNS. Go out and get yourself a gun with a flash-hider, bayonet lug, and the works. Show how important they are to you with your dollars in the next few weeks or months.

The liberals are spineless. They take a look at the sales figures and see how many people will be voting against them in the next election. They will think twice about trying to pass a new ban if we support the industry. Even if they manage to get a new ban through, the current guns will remain in the economy just like before.

Second step? SUPPORT LEGAL SYSTEM REFORM. Time to stop the liberals from suing the firearms industry to death. The best way to do this is not by supporting firearms industry legal immunity. The best way to do it is by supporting legal reform as a whole. These are just part of the frivolous lawsuits that are killing major industries in this country. Time to join with other groups to kill them all.

[Zedicus]

The good People on www.awbansunset.com have talked extensively on this, and they came to the conclusion that we should first target the 68 ban (or was it the 34 ban...???) then the 86 ban, kill both of those, and you take out the 89 ban with them.:D

[Sam Adams]

This country's demographics is radically changing. NOT for the better. We've got a quickly increasing spanish population. Add the blacks, orientals, jews and dumb white crackers, and what you have is anything but a 50% majority on pro gun questions. The best we can hope for is to simply keep what we have! (That's a tough enough accomplishment!)

If that's not racist, it is pretty damned close; and even if not, then any member of one of those groups who was on the fence about guns would quickly go back to the Dark Side. The fact is that the country as a whole has been gradually shifting away from the Left since the excesses of the late '60s and early '70s. The destruction of the USSR didn't hurt, and the senselessness of appeasement (a Leftist specialty) was conclusively demonstrated on 9/11/01. So, there is hope of various traditionally liberal/Democratic minority groups gradually being assimilated into the political mainstream - but VaniB. and warmi have demonstrated their utter lack of sense in stating what they did.

I happen to be Jewish and extremely pro-gun. I've had innumerable conversations with other Jews and swayed a bunch of outright antis into becoming either fencesitters or pro-gun. I've taken a few younger people, Jews all, to the range for their first shooting experience and I'll continue to do the same. It is not hopeless, but ignorant and hateful statements like VaniB's don't help the process. You're both entitled to your opinions, but in the future you would help our cause far more by taking a big dose of STFU.
____________

In keeping with the topic of the thread, I think that Justin's proposal regarding suppressors is BRILLIANT! I was just at a range yesterday and one of my friends rented a suppressed WW2 Greasegun (M3?). It was an absolute pleasure to have the rangemaster tell us all to take off our muffs to watch some fine shooting with a full auto. Wearing muffs is a pain in the rear, and even then one is not completely protected from loud blasts (like the guy sighting in his .338 about 2 feet away). Suppressors will, as Justin stated, cut the costs and misery induced by hearing loss, and will make our relationships with our neighbors far better. P.S. A good suppressor will also lessen recoil.

I also cast my vote for getting the frivilous lawsuit ban put in place. That is another element of The Plan to drive up the cost of our guns until no one but people with $700 million ketchup fortunes can afford to buy them.

[duckslayer]

I think that carry in national parks along the same lines as national forests is a worthwhile goal for which to push next. If we pressure our senators enough, I think we could get this accomplished.

[Black Snowman]

Whatever the NRA, GOA, etc . . . zero in on, I'll contribute and work to help them pull it off.

[Don Gwinn]

I came here because there was a report of a racist post. Honestly, I think it's been explained at this point that racism was not the intent, even if it came across that way. More importantly, I think the response has been important to see, so I'm going to leave this here.

[Jay Kominek]

But there is the beauty of it! Many people already think that the AWB covers machine guns. I believe this helps to show how much oppisition there would be to repealing the 1986 and 1934 bans. If Feinstein and the Brady Group are already making people think that "assault weapons" are machine guns, there is not much else they could tell them about the 86/34 bans being repealed. While obviosuly, it is by no means an exact portrayal, I believe it gives somewhat of an idea as to how difficult it would be. I do expect it to be more difficult than the AWB expiration, however.
Its better than that! Not only is there not much else that the antigunners can say to try and scare people, but look, they already did their worst, and what was the reaction?
Nothing!
They've portrayed "assault weapons" as the absolute worst possible thing. There isn't anywhere left for them to go.
I've had a half dozen acquaintences all come up to me to talk about how "machine guns" are legal now. (Some of whom wanted to go buy one. They were disappointed by the truth.) If any politicians would come along with the balls to propose dropping the '86 laws (or even '34), I bet most people wouldn't bat an eye, as they wouldn't be able to understand why the law wasn't redundant.

Introducing this sort of legislation ASAP would be grand, as VPC and all of them have probably just blown most of their budget, emotional energy and drained their donor's wallets enough for one tax year trying to fight the AWB. Even if it failed, it'd keep them on their toes. They'd have to spend time and energy talking about how many children would spontaneously combust if the laws were repealed, leaving them with less time and energy to talk about how many fewer children will explode if only they can ban SKS's.

[Ironbarr]

Good thoughts there.

At this point we could boost the curve to how it will help the military to have pre-exposed experience with modern military-type weaponry. If in-service, the experience reduces training time and speeds troop relief - or faster response to hot spots.

At home, it provides the base for Homeland Security activities to accept knowledgeable recruits for the security of ports, waterways and water sources, power plants, and other more or less federal responsiblities. On the state/local levels there are public buildings, schools, libraries, and other places where arms knowledge and experience could serve.

Back in '01, just after the Twin Tower debacle, I wrote a couple pieces that didn't get into the Opinion pages; for any interest:

http://members.cox.net/ironbarr/militia.htm
http://members.cox.net/ironbarr/sdf.htm

I'd hoped the to jack up "someone" to establish local security efforts by utilizing the unorganized militia or volunteers. I still feel that this is a - if not THE - way to go. I'm currently putting on paper a proposal for such a voluntary effort for local subdivisions - trying to keep it simple yet effective.

I truly hope that some sort of local security organization - other than LEO/Fire/Rescue, etc. - can be put in place soon. I really want this to stay out of the politics of who-gets-what-and-how-much. Remember, most police and fire/rescue models are based on population... so many people for each 1000 in population for example. If this ratio is still prevelant our force would be maybe 350 police and (I don't know) x-amount of Fire/Rescue. (Maybe it's more today, they've been training volunteer reserve officers here.)

Example: If there are two hot spots in town - or maybe just one at a "hot" high school football game maybe all those assets would be at the scene. Thus, who's watching the store, hmmm? I wonder who was watching Uptown NYC on 9/11. Weren't there stories re stolen gear, etc. at empty fire houses????

AFAIC... there should be NO arms restrictions respecting law-abiding people - we can't afford it.

Well, enough of me.

-Andy

[PMDW]

If someone wants to get to work on the 86 ban, I will help out as much as a 17 year old can.

[morganm01]

.50 Cals

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=101438

[Correia]

I think 86 would be the best target.

You can even sell it as a tax revenue generation thing. I love the idea of calling it the Machine Gun Registration act. That is brilliant.

[tyme]

I will write it up tonight, and combine with Justin's removal-of-silencer-regulation idea.

"Machine gun registration and Safety in Firearm Sports Act of 2005"?
"Safety in Firearm Sports and Assault Rifle Registration Act of 2005"?

Maybe using "assault rifle" in place of "maching gun" will shut up all the people whining about the sunset of the assault weapon ban. Idiots.

[PMDW]

Maybe using "assault rifle" in place of "maching gun" will shut up all the people whining about the sunset of the assault weapon ban. Idiots.

Yes. Great idea. Go with it.

[The Rabbi]

It'll be great until the buttheads in Congress amend the act to include ALL guns subject to registration.

[tyme]

I got a bit carried away.

http://www.thefiringline.com/Misc/pl/safety-arban-draft1.html

[The Rabbi]

Someone with waaaayyy too much time on his hands.

Id love to see it pass though.

[madmike]

"The gun nuts are trying to pass a law to let people own machineguns!"

"Yes, we heard about that. They can buy assault weapons now, right? Machineguns, flamethrowers, mortar launchers(sic) and such."

"No, no! That was a ban that expired, this is a law that would allow them to carry machineguns!"

"But they are, aren't they?"

"No, those weren't machineguns, those were just rifles!"

"'Just rifles'? But didn't you say they were machineguns and blood would run in the street?"

"The important thing now is to get rid of machineguns!"

"But didn't you already argue that issue and lose?"

"No! No! YOU'RE NOT LISTENING! THAT WASN'T MACHINEGUNS!"

"But you said it was."

"Ah, er, we ahem, um, er ah, that was just rhetoric to catch your attention."

"So the law wasn't about machineguns?"

"No."

"So what was the big deal?"

"Nothing! But THIS IS a big deal!"

"Really? Will Osama come and buy machineguns? Along with the Big Bad Wolf?"

"You're mocking us!"

"Well....yes."

Yup, let's go after 1986 now. After all, the public's confusion, combined with the weapons' menacing looks, can only help legislatively.
:neener:

[Jay Kominek]

Is there a list of all the members of the Second Amendment Caucus?
This ought to be forwarded to all of them. (And the NRANews whatsit guy?)
One of them ought to at least try to get the ball rolling on something like this.

[txgho1911]

MadMike I could only hope it would go that way. The media would still pick and choose the truth they would report. And the forgeries.

Would be an overgrown thread discussion. Will take me hours to catch up.
Many people and I mean real people see no need or lagitamate need for a semiautomatic weapon configured like an M16A2.
__________________________________________________________
PMDW said:

86, 68, 89, 34. In that order.
___________________________________________________________

That is a good short and precice plan!

___________________________________________________________

A national CCW will empower the federal govt to keep track of your name in the context of a registered gun owner.
Is that what we deserve?
The 2nd amendment is the original permit to carry any gun any way we choose. Giving the fed govt more authority over allowing Alice Victoria Temple or banning this individual because of some other person by the same name in another part of the country or even the world. This is happening today at your local major airport.
@ the federal level we could have full pre-emption on any law restricting gun ownership. Forced recognition of other states permit system. 218 did this for LEO.
There are points we can make in our favor in repeals and in proactive moves at the federal level.
This is a fight that will continue. If you think it's all over after Nov 2 you will get what you deserve.
I keep repeating on this board and others.
! RUN FOR OFFICE !
I think I am getting loud on this point because circumstance dictates that I am not able to myself.

Entire GCA 1968

Anything else is just another compromise.

_________________________________________________________
lotts of work
We will collectively need to work a lot of hours communicating in many ways and means, with all flavors of cival posts. It'll take active citizen input and activism.
Run for office. Work through November and start worrying about 06 and 08.
Do you know what you want at the federal level? I do.
A national pre-emption on states and cities from restrictive laws.
Protection from prosecution for protecting life and property.
A whole lot of laws on the federal level repealed.
On the far edge of legislation; Require all states recognise and honor state permits of every type.


_________________________________________________________

[Graystar]

I think the very next thing for us to do is to hammer our senators to support the bill that eliminates all the DC gun laws. That’s on the horizon, and could, hopefully, kick off a trend for the rest of the country.

[carpboy]

This discussion and the wish list is entertaiining,but no mention is made of one of the slimeyist pieces of unconstitutional legistlation ever passed in the US.Wife beaters dont have any constitiuentcy but folks who had their rights taken away Ex Post Facto need to have their rights restored.This is murky issue but I know folks who are affected by this even tho they have NEVER been convicted of any crime in a court of law.Lets put some sunshine on this piece of rot!:fire:

[Billll]

The '34 act imposes a tax or fee on the exercise of a constitutional right, and as such is no different than a poll tax. The whole thing should be thrown out on that basis alone, and everyone who has bought a box of .22 has standing.
Or am I all wet on that?
Executive orders can be removed by a countervailing executive order. Bug Bush after the election.
Laws forbidding importation of anything are a free trade issue. as long as the imports meet US standards for the device (car, gun, whatever) they should be allowed in.

Now is the time, while we still have momentum.

[PMDW]

The '34 act imposes a tax or fee on the exercise of a constitutional right, and as such is no different than a poll tax. The whole thing should be thrown out on that basis alone

I agree completely, but I think we should take this one step at a time. Tossing everything into one giant bill lowers the chances of it being passed.

[The Rabbi]

A national CCW will empower the federal govt to keep track of your name in the context of a registered gun owner.

I think you're misunderstanding what we want. We dont want a Federal pre-emption of what states issue. What we want is a federal rule that what one state does with regard to carry should be valid in any other state. The licenses will remain state-issued. So, if CA decides never to grant CCWs that would not stop an AZ resident who has one from carrying when he travels to CA. Works just like your driver's license.

[Graystar]

I think you're misunderstanding what we want. We dont want a Federal pre-emption of what states issue. What we want is a federal rule that what one state does with regard to carry should be valid in any other state. The licenses will remain state-issued. I think *you're* misunderstanding what we want. We want no licenses, and recognition of no power to license. You can't license a right!

[The Rabbi]

.I think *you're* misunderstanding what we want. We want no licenses, and recognition of no power to license. You can't license a right!

OK. That aint gonna happen. Let's talk what's really possible.
The right to vote is guaranteed and you still have to register so the argument for unrestricted rights is on thin ground

[Graystar]

The right to vote is guaranteed and you still have to register so the argument for unrestricted rights is on thin ground Tell that to Alaskans.

[The Rabbi]

Alaskans dont have to register to vote? Better tell their state government that.
http://www.gov.state.ak.us/ltgov/elections/faqs.htm#regvote

[Graystar]

Voting is a constitutional right. If there’s no government there’s no need for a right to vote. As an invented “right”, it’s subject to whatever the inventors fancy. So it’s a bad example to use.

Self-defense is a natural right and it does, in fact, remain unrestricted. There are even two cases where a felon’s weapons conviction was overturned because at the time the possession occurred the felon was defending his life.

What’s lost on the current government is the symbiotic connection between firearm possession and self-defense. Alaska has recognized that connection, so it’s not impossible to get government to see it.

[The Rabbi]

Self-defense is a natural right and it does, in fact, remain unrestricted.
OK, I'll take this one on. How is "self defense" a natural right? What book is this written in? Where is this enumerated? What proof do you have for this?
Pace the Founders, there are no natural rights. Rights are given. Rights can be taken away. All the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights had to be included because otherwise they wouldnt exist.
Every other right in the Bill is also subject to restrictions. If you want to hold a peaceful protest, you need a permit. There are no unrestricted rights.

[Graystar]

OK, I'll take this one on. How is "self defense" a natural right? What book is this written in? Where is this enumerated? What proof do you have for this? It is the nature of rights to not have to be written somewhere...they simply exist and are recognized.

Even here in New York, self-defense is recognized.
S 35.00 Justification; a defense.
In any prosecution for an offense, justification, as defined in
sections 35.05 through 35.30, is a defense.

S 35.05 Justification; generally.
Unless otherwise limited by the ensuing provisions of this article
defining justifiable use of physical force, conduct which would
otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable and not criminal when:
...
2. Such conduct is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an
imminent public or private injury which is about to occur by reason of a
situation occasioned or developed through no fault of the actor, and
which is of such gravity that, according to ordinary standards of
intelligence and morality, the desirability and urgency of avoiding such
injury clearly outweigh the desirability of avoiding the injury sought
to be prevented by the statute defining the offense in issue...

[Beren]

Fantastic write-up on suppressors by Justin. If we can dig up some documentation regarding suppressor use and laws in Europe, we could turn this into a real avenue of advance.

I'd propose two avenues of approach:

1. De-NFA sound suppressors, but require a NICS check at time of purchase.

a. As a compromise, I could live with lowering the transfer fee to $50 and replacing the mandatory CLEO sign-off with giving the CLEO 30 days to provide "good cause" for why the application should be denied. Habitual drunkard, etc - but "good cause" would need to be defined in the bill.

2. A repeal of the ban on registering post-86 machineguns. The repeal would have a ten year sunset clause in it to assist in its passing - that would help get the RINOs on board. :) In absence of hard stats showing significant use of machineguns in crimes, I wouldn't be worried about our prospects in 2015.

I view the above as higher priorities than repealing the import ban. We'll only have so much time to push, so we should go for the reforms that'll have the greatest positive impact.

[The Rabbi]

It is the nature of rights to not have to be written somewhere...they simply exist and are recognized.

They simply exist??? What rights would you say "simply exist"? How do you know they are rights? Some people assert a "right to healthcare". Others dispute that. How do you adjudicate these claims? This is sounding like mushiness of the right, just as bad as mushiness of the left.

[Graystar]

They simply exist??? What rights would you say "simply exist"? How do you know they are rights? And what is it about writing a right down on paper that makes exist?

I’ll tell you what it is...recognition. But to think that we only possess officially recognized rights, is shortsighted and completely counter to the reasons for the Ninth Amendment.

[Deavis]

A couple observations.

Justin - Did you lift part of that from from Paulson's book because it looks very very similiar. If you guys like what Justin said, check out:

Sporting And Tactical Silencers, Vol. 1 (Silencer History And Performance)
by Alan C. Paulson

He actually shows some interesting data in there about how supressors work and the real deal on their effectivness. He also mentions that he believes suppresors were banned due to poaching fears during the depression, not criminal fears. Silencers (a word he does not like) don't work like in the movies!

VaniB - As much as it sounds racist, you are correct to some extent. What you fail to realize is that most minorities are not Democratic, they just think they are. My good friend's father teaches at a black law school in Alabama. He started asking the students if they supported a few things like abortions, gay marriage, gun control, etc. Typical Democratic values if you believe Hillary Clinton. Most of them said they didn't support those things and when told them that made them Republicans they about lost it. They knew they just knew they were Democrats and that crazy cracker was off his rocker. It is just like the man who has voted union all his life, even though the union ultimately costs him his job. He just doesn't know any better.

It is up to us to educate and bring them in one anti at a time. We just got a **** liberal to purchase her first handgun this very weekend and she had a blast shooting it. That is the only way to repeal legislation is to destroy those liars ability to demonize guns. It is the public ignorance and lack of concern that is costing us our guns.

Lastly, what we need is a George Sorosofr guns. None of this can happen without some big money. If I could figure out a way to raise a few million to start making court cases I would but otherwise we are going to have to wait until one of us makes it big! The reason they get legislation is becaue they have big money lobbying, aka buying, votes. We will not be able to repeal laws in Congress without money. Probably cheaper to go through the courts with the right lawyers.

[Billmanweh]

I'd say the next thing would be getting Bush re-relected and as many Republicans as possible in the Senate and House...

If Kerry wins, you can throw your plans out the window for at least 4 years.

[Ironbarr]

What Billmanweh said... er - wrote.