Next Pro Gun Battle?


PDA






Zrex
October 22, 2004, 01:29 PM
Now that the AWB has expired, do you think there will be any pro gun legislation passed in the next 2-4 years?

Do you think we will be proactive with things like, National CCW, possibly changing the "sporting purpose" wording of the '68 GCA to something more like "lawful purpose", or maybe turning on registration of new machine guns?

Do you think we will be in a holding pattern just trying to hang on to what we have?

Do you think we will be on the defensive fighting off .50BMG bans and "cop killer bullet" bans and calls for AWB renewal and strengthening?

Or, some combination of the three?



I know what I would like to see, but I am afraid that we will be, at the very least, in a holding pattern in between volleys of anti-gun proposals. I do not believe that the congress will have the will to try to do anything overtly pro-gun.

I also hope like heck that I'm wrong.

If you enjoyed reading about "Next Pro Gun Battle?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
fletcher
October 22, 2004, 01:35 PM
Do you think we will be on the defensive fighting off .50BMG bans and "cop killer bullet" bans and calls for AWB renewal and strengthening?

I think we'll have to keep doing that regardless of our next goal - don't think we have a choice there...


I would love to see the import ban 'repealed', it's mostly some arbitrary "you can have something like this if it's made of US parts, if it's foreign, then it's bad!"

Dave R
October 22, 2004, 01:36 PM
I know there have been some bills written on national reciprocity for CCW permit holders. In other words, if you have a CCW permit, all states have to honor it.

I've also seen some bills to give off duty/retired LEO's the right to carry nationwide.

I think they've all died in committe. But I'm far from an expert in this field.

itgoesboom
October 22, 2004, 01:38 PM
The liberals will next continue to try to ban ammo, or at least tax it to make shooting too expensive.

.50bmg will also be on the chopping block.

I.G.B.

Bobarino
October 22, 2004, 02:09 PM
i'd like to see the ban on firearms in National Parks go away. its ridiculous to disarm someone in the wilderness where four legged critters, as well as the two legged ones are a threat. its also ridiculous to have to disassemble your firearm to even pass through a park!

the '89 import ban needs to go as well as the '86 MG ban, then national CCW that overrides states bans on CCW.

of course in order for all this to happen, we need to have Bush elected first because at least he won't fight against us. he won't fight for us either, but Kerry is dead set on disarming the nation. if he gets elected, there will be HUGE steps backwards.

Bobby

buzz_knox
October 22, 2004, 02:35 PM
Now that the AWB has expired, do you think there will be any pro gun legislation passed in the next 2-4 years?

If Bush is elected, we will see a victory in that the UN treaty on small arms will go nowhere, and there will be nothing gun related passed. I don't see the momentum in the movement sufficient to eliminate the '86 or '89 bans at this time. Repeal of the '68 Act is a lost cause for the foreseeable future. Under DOJ and Aschroft, ATFE will lose less of its ability to illegally pressure gun dealers and this should help halt the loss of dealers.



We might see the firearms manufactur liability restriction act passed, as a general part of tort reform.

All in all, the status quo will remain with Bush, which isn't that bad as it allows for us to fortify the positions we have.

With Kerry, we will see a new and expanded AWB (they learned their lessons from last time) along the lines of California's ban within 2 years. It will probably pass the Senate and may get through the House if Kerry can exert enough political pressure, no matter the makeup of the Congress. Once that is in place, we will see increased taxes on ammunition and firearms (one of Kerry's favorite proposals), and legislation allowing regulation of firearms as consumer products.

We will also see Kerry sign a UN treaty calling for tighter controls on the small arms trade. It won't be as sweeping as what's currently called for, but will be sufficient to establish a precedent for the later restriction of private ownership of firearms. While the treaty probably won't be ratified, it will become customary international law, and the United States will be expected to cooperate with it, if not be completely bound by it.

On the administrative side, Kerry's choice for ATFE will reevaluate the sporting requirement to preclude large numbers of imports, particularly handguns. Dealers will return to being oppressed by ATFE inspections and threats, and will continue the trend of getting out of the business.

Oh, and in case anyone was wondering, on January 21 or so, a letter will go out from the acting head of HUD, informing Smith and Wesson that specific performance of the contract it signed with HUD to settle the potential lawsuits will be expected forthwith.

Jim March
October 22, 2004, 03:18 PM
Washington DC's total ban will be fought in Congress next.

If that can be lifted and then the crime rate inevitably drops, it'll be a horrendous blow to the grabbers.

Sleeping Dog
October 22, 2004, 03:27 PM
It would be nice for ATF to drop the "Once a machine gun, Always a machine gun" ban on M14 sales. Most M14's were never machine guns, and can be tack-welded to make conversion improbable.

I'd like to see them on sale at CMP.

Regards.

Cosmoline
October 22, 2004, 05:16 PM
The main battle--and the major victories--are all at the state level now. The fight in Congress will remain a stalemate and both sides will be fighting defensive battles. That is, they'll either be proposing DOA legislation or quashing it.

At the state level, we've seen massive victories in shall-issue CCW. That battle will continue, though I don't know how many states will follow Alaska's lead and go all the way. I suspect we'll see growing discontent with anti policies on the state level as more citizens are packing heat and liking it.

psyopspec
October 22, 2004, 05:22 PM
Semper Gumbi to prevent Molon Labe. I have to say a combination of your options.

flatrock
October 22, 2004, 06:01 PM
I think we may see some relief in the area of gun laws indirectly.

Lawsuit reform could have a significant effect on preserving our rights in general, not just where firearms are concerned.

I think that Judges appointed by Bush are much less likely to be activists that reintrepret the constitution to match their views.

I think that we may see a weakening of the liber grip on news outlets. If they can't continue to spout lies about guns, then it will be harder to pass gun control legislation that they claim to be "sensible".

It's hard to really tell if the tide of gun control has turned. We were trending toward more restrictive laws, and the defeat of the AWB broke that trend. But the AWB was a small gain because it really didn't do much. It was mostly symbolic that it was passed, and it was mostly symbolic when it was defeated.

Nationwide concealed carry would be a real gain.

The Supreme Court recognizing an individual right to keep and bear arms would be the ideal gain. However, this would be instantly followed by efforts to restrict what types of arms are allowed by that right, so recognizing that right is only the first step.

I think one real benefit of 4 more years of Bush might be that more and more of the liberals would get flushed out of government positions over time, and we might have to deal with less of the junk anti-gun reports comming from government agencies pushing their adgenda rather than the facts.

jdege
October 22, 2004, 06:06 PM
We don't need to change the "sporting purpose" language, all we need is add a clarification - that "sporting purpose" includes target and other competitive shooting.

Standing Wolf
October 22, 2004, 06:07 PM
Washington DC's total ban will be fought in Congress next.
If that can be lifted and then the crime rate inevitably drops, it'll be a horrendous blow to the grabbers.

Dream on, friend! The leftist extremists have never—ever!—been daunted by mere facts.

Waitone
October 22, 2004, 06:28 PM
Washington DC's total ban will be fought in Congress next.

If that can be lifted and then the crime rate inevitably drops, it'll be a horrendous blow to the grabbers.I would think Michigan's concealed carry law's effect on crime in Detroit would serve as an indicator of what to expect when DC rejoins the republic.

Zrex
October 22, 2004, 06:42 PM
We don't need to change the "sporting purpose" language, all we need is add a clarification - that "sporting purpose" includes target and other competitive shooting.

Jdege --

Respectfully. Is self defense a sporting purpose? Please point to the "sporting purpose" clause in the constitution. The 2nd is not about sports and hunting. Heck, the 2nd amendment doesnt even grant us the right to do anything. It merely enumerates a right we were all born with, IMHO.

jdege
October 22, 2004, 06:53 PM
Respectfully. Is self defense a sporting purpose?

Nope.

But a repeal of the sporting purpose language is going to bring up screams of how we're importing guns in order to shoot criminals and politicians.

Which we are, of course ;)

But it's not politically wise to say so.

OTOH, is there a competition for which any firearm useful for self defense would be suitable?

Of course there is. And if there isn't we can start one.

Those 12ga shotguns with the rotating magazines may be worthless for duck hunting, but they'd do a bang-up job in a bowling pin shoot.

You'd never hunt with a derringer, but they fit in right nicely in the card-table competition at a Cowboy Action Shoot.

Lone_Gunman
October 22, 2004, 08:45 PM
We will need to work hard to keep Congress focused on not passing any anti gun legislation during the next 4 yrs, because it will surely be signed by whoever becomes president..

jefnvk
October 23, 2004, 12:30 AM
As an 18 year old, I wanna buy ammo for my handgun. And, given that background checks are here to stay, I wanna be able to buy handguns, too.

Import ban would be next on my list, and '86 MG ban.

Gordon Fink
October 23, 2004, 01:13 AM
Hell, if the Republicans stay in power long enough, maybe the Democrats will start to worry about their own right to arms and their ability to “vote from the roof tops.”

~G. Fink

RevDisk
October 23, 2004, 05:24 AM
Hell, if the Republicans stay in power long enough, maybe the Democrats will start to worry about their own right to arms and their ability to “vote from the roof tops.”

I've actually had a number of Democrats ask me about purchasing firearms. Their main reasons usually included a fear of more Patriot Act ish laws, and Ashcroft's wonderful trackrecord on civil liberties. I wouldn't say any of them are planning on voting from the rooftops, but I advised an SKS or a shotgun to keep in the house.

Barbara
October 23, 2004, 06:09 AM
One of the biggest battles I see in the upcoming years is the battle for a place for gunnies, unless we get serious about promoting ourselves. I'm already seeing conservation clubs drifting away from guns and shooting sports and towards "greener" activities. Zoning regulations are doing away with hunting even in areas where its not necessary or practical. Guns are not openly allowed anywhere near everyday life so young people who are not exposed to guns at home never see them in a non-threatening situation.

Depending on who gets elected, we'll have some battles, but its awfully cyclical. If Kerry wins and the gun nabbers gain some ground, gun owners will get more active and so it goes.

c_yeager
October 23, 2004, 07:27 AM
Respectfully. Is self defense a sporting purpose? Please point to the "sporting purpose" clause in the constitution. The 2nd is not about sports and hunting. Heck, the 2nd amendment doesnt even grant us the right to do anything. It merely enumerates a right we were all born with, IMHO.

While I understand what you are saying i would like to point out that the "sporting purpose" thing reffers only to imported weapons. And the constitution DOES give the federal government the authority to regulate international trade. I agree that we should get rid of the law BUT, its probably the toughest battle we have since there is actual constitutional authority for it. We would have better luck repealing the NFA.

Lone_Gunman
October 23, 2004, 10:57 AM
I've actually had a number of Democrats ask me about purchasing firearms. Their main reasons usually included a fear of more Patriot Act ish laws, and Ashcroft's wonderful trackrecord on civil liberties.

Now that is an interesting comment. It would be very ironic if over the next four years, the Bush administration continues on its path of destruction of civil liberties and increasingly intrusive government, and the Democrats emerge as the party of small government and increased freedom.

45Cal
October 23, 2004, 12:58 PM
Lone_Gunman,
Don't drink the water.

45CAL NRA Life member.

Zedicus
October 24, 2004, 12:11 PM
Personally I think the Sunset of the AWB was the first step forward.

I think we should Reinforce our current positions & move toward either taking out the NFA/GCA (Or both) & going after Nationwide CCW Reciprocity at one point or another.

The Import Ban should probably be approached very cautiously & last if passable as it was a Executive Order & will most likely be the most slippery one.

After all that I'd say killing the Background checks then the once convicted of a felony = no guns ever again, or get the criminal charge system completely reformed as they are making nearly everything a felony anymore....

Personally I feel that if there "Has" to be a Restriction on former criminals, that it should only apply to murder convictions only.

Just my $0.02:cool:

Ryan1021
October 24, 2004, 12:35 PM
I would like to see the 1934 ban go, but that is just a dream. :D

carp killer
October 24, 2004, 02:29 PM
This election is ALL about SCOTUS.:what:

RavenVT100
October 24, 2004, 09:13 PM
OTOH, is there a competition for which any firearm useful for self defense would be suitable?

Service rifle competition is quite popular.

twoblink
October 25, 2004, 01:39 AM
reciprocity of ccw IMHO.

telewinz
October 25, 2004, 05:53 AM
I think the gloves will come off and you will see Bush actively support major pro-gun bills. Bush's last 4 years may well indeed be the "high water mark" of the pro-gun movement. if there "Has" to be a Restriction on former criminals, that it should only apply to murder convictions only. I'd go alot further than that...rapists, robbers, repeat violent offenders, kidnappers, and repeat substance abrusers. There are plenty of people in this country that shouldn't be trusted with as much as a dull butter knife.

RevDisk
October 25, 2004, 07:45 AM
Are there any movements at the moment to repeal any other gun control laws? Specifically, the big gun control laws, like the MG ban, GCA or NFA?

If not, which would be first to campaign against? Go straight for giving NFA the axe, or start with the MG ban and work backwards?

Zach S
October 25, 2004, 09:54 AM
As an 18 year old, I wanna buy ammo for my handgun. And, given that background checks are here to stay, I wanna be able to buy handguns, too. lol, a buddy of mine in Burnsville got one of those ruger carbines that use P-series mags in .40 S&W. No one would sell him ammo for it. He got mad and traded it for an AK variant.

As for getting rid of stupid laws, I think NIB MGs would be nice, along with OTC supressors.

Bartholomew Roberts
October 25, 2004, 10:44 AM
buzz_knox gave a pretty level-headed evaluation of the possibilities I thought.

In evaluating what we can do for the pro-gun cause, we have to first look at what we have to work with.

We have a House of Representatives where we have a 15-20 vote margin (at best) on banning semi-autos on cosmetic principles.

We have a Senate where we are down 4 votes on banning semi-autos based on cosmetics.

After this election, we will pick up 2-3 votes in both the House and the Senate. If we only pick up 2 votes in the Senate, then who the vice-president is will be very important as we will either have a vice-president who opposed the gun ban on nonexistent plastic guns (Cheney) or a vice-president with a 100% Brady record (Edwards) to cast the tie-breaking vote.

Since our margin in the Senate will be razor thin, we will be completely unable to pass any reform that the Dems are willing to filibuster on. However, the Dems are already trying to pretend they aren't pro-gun control so we can force some victories through by controlling the dialogue.

In that area, I think CCW reciprocity and lawsuit preemption are probably two of the more promising bills that we could pass. Lawsuit reemption already has a majority of support in both Houses, we just need enough solid pro-gun votes to keep the Dems from tacking on killer amendments in the Senate.

CCW reciprocity would be even harder as the antis in the Dem party recognize the precedent this would set and might be apt to filibuster it using the same arguments of "blood in the streets" that have been proven false in many states now.

I think if we redfine an attack on the "sporting purpose" clause to simply acknowledge a "self-defense clause" we would be on strong ground. America still widely recognizes the right to self defense with a firearm. This would play well to a largely ill-informed public; but the antis would never let this go without a filibuster. At best we could just expose their agenda to a lot of people who think that the antis do not represent a serious threat.

jdege
October 25, 2004, 11:54 AM
I think if we redfine an attack on the "sporting purpose" clause to simply acknowledge a "self-defense clause" we would be on strong ground. America still widely recognizes the right to self defense with a firearm. This would play well to a largely ill-informed public; but the antis would never let this go without a filibuster.

I may be wrong, but I thought that while the "sporting use" requirement was in statute, the definition of "sporting use" was simply an administrative rule.

If that's correct, it's a change that could be made fairly quietly. It wouldn't need Congressional approval.

It'd need a majority vote in Congress to stop it, not to pass it.

armoredman
October 25, 2004, 12:20 PM
The National CCW for active and retired LE is a law now, and in effect. the NRA and others have entered in a bill to expand this to Corrections Officers. The trend to watch here is the same the LIEberals use ...baby steps. Next will be expanded to Armed Security Guards, and then CCW holders, under full faith and credit....yes, it can happen.

Bartholomew Roberts
October 25, 2004, 04:03 PM
I may be wrong, but I thought that while the "sporting use" requirement was in statute, the definition of "sporting use" was simply an administrative rule.

How "sporting use" is interpreted is an administrative rule; but I don't see much point to expending political capital to change an administrative rule when the next anti Administration will simply change it back.

If you redefine the statute to include self-defense, you affect a whole host of laws and administrative rulings that use that statute as their basis - and while it is harder to get that through Congress, it is also harder to undo as well.

If you enjoyed reading about "Next Pro Gun Battle?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!