Is the RKBA better or worse off than 10 years ago?


June 21, 2006, 12:14 PM
..and why?

If you enjoyed reading about "Is the RKBA better or worse off than 10 years ago?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
June 21, 2006, 12:19 PM
1. No Federal Semi-Automatic Assault Weapons Ban.

2. Most of the US has Shall-Issue CCW and the number is growing. (Florida CCW is now accepted in 29 states.)

3. Castle Doctrine has been expanded.

4. Several states, including Florida, now have laws prohibiting gun confiscation during disasters.

5. Some states, such as Florida, prohibit civil suits against persons in shootings ruled justified.

6. Law prohibiting bogus lawsuits against gun dealers and manufacturers.

The next thing needed is to repeal the 1986 Machinegun Ban!

June 21, 2006, 12:20 PM
Arguably Better:

For starters:

-AWB has sunsetted.
-Many more "shall issue" states.
-Formal positions from both the executive and legislative branches that RKBA is in fact an individual right of undetermined scope.
-5th circuit ruling on RKBA as individual right
-Lots and lots of new gunnies

June 21, 2006, 12:30 PM
Better in most states. The klinton stink has wafted away and so did his AWB. A few states let the klinton-feinstein odor fester and take root however, so they have state AWBs.

John Ashcroft released a DOJ opinion that states the 2A is an individual right. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms law also states it is an individual right in its findings.

More states than ever have shall-issue CHL and more states are adopting the castle doctrine.

Goodies like the FN FS2000 and SIG556 are either available or on the way, something unimaginable during the 90s.

Life is good for gunnies right now. Stock up while you can. :D

June 21, 2006, 01:02 PM
Interesting replies so far, but I'd wonder why the lone "worse" voter believes that. :)

June 21, 2006, 01:05 PM
12 years ago? Worse...for the following reason.

Before Brady, a citizen could buy a firearm on his signaure under penalty of perjury.

Today, EVERY law abiding citizen submits to being treated like a suspected felon FIRST. He must ask PERMISSION from a federal police agency before he "allowed" to exercie his "right". He still has to sign a sworn form under penalty of perjury, even after he has "permission" from Federal Daddy.

The Feds admit that the NICS prevents about 2% of all transfers. That means the NICS is 98% INEFFECTIVE at preventing firearm sales to prohibited persons. Perhaps its just me, but does that sound like the best way to spend law enforcement funds?

June 21, 2006, 01:33 PM
Well, aren't we a mostly upbeat crowd, today.

June 21, 2006, 01:37 PM

er....math/logic/semantic flaw.

When people speak of NICS "effectiveness", they usually mean it's effectiveness in preventing a prohibited person from obtaining a firearm.

If NICS prevents 2% of the transfers, it does not follow that the other 98% are to criminals. It's probably to honest folk like you, me, and Art's Grammaw.

I _think_ what you're trying to say is that 98% of the time, _because_ it's an honest person standing across from the cash register, the excercise is pointless and futile.

I'm with you on that.

My own math, documented elsewhere, indicates that there's about 250,000 violent criminals in our country.

NICS, and everything else, vast sums of treasure, time, blood and inconvenience for everyone is expended trying to control that .05% of the population.

June 21, 2006, 01:39 PM

Besides all the good reasons everyone else has stated, the grabbers have seen a steady vacuum of proof to thier arguments. Not only are they being proven wrong, every time an anti-gun law goes away, and the results are positive, they look even more ridiculous in Chicago, Washington DC, California, etc. The last remaining gun-free cities are starkly incorrect. Every one of their ideas has failed. The focus is turning to THEM, instead of us.

June 21, 2006, 01:55 PM
While it seems like RKBA is pretty well frozen (well, with the AWB demise and the liability for manufacturers as a couple bright spots) on the national level, in most states it is marching right on ahead.

Shall issue CCW is now in the majority of states, and of those without any mechanism for that, most of them are getting closer and closer every session of legislature. Castle doctrine and other liability reform is marching right on. Many states are passing or debating "no confiscation" laws- while it isn't a SCOTUS ruling that the 2A is an individual right, it makes the point that we have a right to self defense.

While some states like CA, IL, NJ, and NY seem to be mired in a morass of despair regarding the RKBA, the anti-2A forces are barely breaking even there. They may score an AWB or a .50 ban, but they seem to fail when it comes to banning handguns.

I believe that for the time being, we have a rising tide of things in favor of the RKBA. Now we need to do what we can to chisel these gains in stone for future generations. Just because we have ensured that we and our children can't be oppressed, it doesn't mean that things can't reverse and plant our grandchildren and great-grandchildren in a world o' hurt.

June 21, 2006, 02:24 PM
I agree that we are better off than were 10 years ago, but worse off than we were 12 years ago, for the reasons already mentioned.

The Bush years have been hard on most civil rights, but fortunately he has been slack on limiting the second amendment.

June 21, 2006, 02:33 PM
I'd say better for all of the afore mentioned reasons. The momentum has built up, and all we can do is stick together to keep the tides turning against the anit-gunnies. They are clearly wrong on all points of their arguments.:D

June 21, 2006, 02:50 PM
Of course, all this positive outlook begs the question: How come our RKBA discussions still tend towards fear and anger? Habit? Group depression? NRA/GOA fundraising letters? Keyboard kommando wishful thinking?

June 21, 2006, 02:54 PM
My point was simple. Ninty-eight percent of people asking NICS permission didn't need their back grounds checked in the first place.

Thats not effective law enforcement.

June 21, 2006, 02:57 PM
If you believe the that the 2A is absolute then we are worse off. Why because Gun owners think that a paper from the Govt (for thiers "Rights") is great. Every state in the union should not NEED a CCW law/permit, a castle doctrine law or AWB. But this mindset that we need the Govt's blessing, being treated as if I'm a criminal (by requiring fingerprint...etc.) and rounding arond thinking we are winning...IMHO is a joke.

If you believe that the Bill of Rights are not absolute.....then its a legislative war..and the one with the most laws wins......

June 21, 2006, 03:04 PM
I think GOA does a good job for it's size. The NRA SHOULD be advocating the repeal of the GCA and the NFA. I have been a life member for many years. They stopped sending me fund raising letters a while back because I kept sending letters to them (saying the above) in their own postage paid envelopes.

The NRA gave up and let Brady pass in 93, as long as it ended with the NICS.

I think the sense of futility comes from watching the elites in D.C. do what they want and the will of the people be damned. There was a backlash in the 94 elections. The House voted to repeal the AWB, the Senate, lead by Mr. Dole, wouldn't even bring up debate on it. That is after Mr. Dole promised in his fund raising letters in 94 to make it a priority in the next session. Lies....

Mr. Bush, the "conservative", is allowing the invasion of our country. He is complicit in this North American Union plan. He didn't tell us that did he?

There are no more than a handful of Representatives and Senators who care enough to even give lip service to the Constitution.

June 21, 2006, 03:17 PM

My point about the NRA/GOA was to wonder about the disconnect between our frequent mood (fear and anger) and the majority's view here (things getting better).

Something's not clicking. Most of us are upbeat when asked directly about the trends -- but our discussions still tend towards fear and anger. Why? Habit? Group depression? NRA/GOA fundraising letters? Keyboard kommando wishful thinking? Something in the water? The majority is krazykats?

Oleg Volk
June 21, 2006, 03:35 PM
Most people have a lot on their political activism often takes second place to raising kids, working, catching up on sleep. There's also a perception that the complexity and the scope of the problems make individual efforts to counter them minimally effective. It's easy to get discouraged.

Gordon Fink
June 21, 2006, 03:46 PM
Federally, itís about the same, but in California, it has certainly gotten worse.

~G. Fink

June 21, 2006, 03:49 PM
In addition to the aforementioned points, here's my take.

Things were good 15 years ago for gun owners but then got very dark due to several bad/irresponsible events (largly due to the ridiculous war on drugs).

It was arguably healthy for America to test the gun laws, and definately necessary and inevitable.

We gun owners can almost thank, yes thank, our enemies. They have learned that gun ownership is strong and we have presented so many good arguments FOR gun ownership.

The nation has watched the failure of gun control on national and statewide levels. The Anti-gun crowd has paid HUGE prices on policial seats in national and state and local levels. The left arguably lost dozens of seat in Congress and quite possibly 2 presidencies and many local seats because of their anti-gun agenda.

One point... I'm not convinced that NICS is a bad thing, really. I'm torn on this issue. On the one hand, I don't think you should have to get a license, approval, or whatever to buy a gun. On the other hand, I think it is valuable to weed out certain people (such as violent felons) from gun ownership. Saying it only prevented 2% from buying is too simplistic. That overlooks the fact that most people know about their backgrounds and won't waste their time TRYING to buy because of NICS.

Overall, I would do away with NICS. First, there is a private ownership sales loophole, which I'm NOT willing to close. So there are ways around NICS for the motivated criminal such as private sales, theft, black market, etc.

Secondly, there are plenty of household items that are deadly weapons including knifes, gasoline, axes, crossbows, hammers, swords, poisons, etc... that can be used to commit murders. I'm not willing to start registration of these.

June 21, 2006, 03:56 PM
On the state level, great strides have been made with regard to CCW laws, and, with lesser impact, the recent wave of stand-your-ground laws. I think what we have seen is fence-sitters who have tentatively decided to step into the pro-RKBA camp. On the other hand, the more citizen-hating states like my own have slid backwards.

On the Federal level, the outlook is neutral to mildly discouraging. The AWB has expired, but lest everyone forget, the renewal actually passed the Senate. It got 52 votes, before its host bill was quashed. Not even tentative moves have been made toward reform of the more obnoxious provisions of the 1968 GCA, like eliminating the sporting purposes test, or relaxing interstate sales restrictions.

On the international level, the situation is grim in most of the other English-speaking countries. Gun rights are being further threatened by the social democrat weenies in charge of most of the EU/Western Europe. The US is doing a good job of fending off the UN/IANSA, but it remains to be seen what their impact will be here and abroad.

June 21, 2006, 04:48 PM
. . . but I'd wonder why the lone "worse" voter believes that. California resident, maybe?

I think things have gotten a bit better in the last 10 years, but the progress is fragile . . .

Government regulations, rules, and laws tend to have a "ratchet" effect, in that it's easy to get more restrictions, but difficult to remove them. This "ratchet" effect isn't unique to guns, but when it's added to the passion of people like Kennedy, Schumer, those two batty women from California, and the blatant advocacy of the dominant media and brainwashing of school children, things can take a turn for the worse very easily.

June 21, 2006, 08:43 PM
but the progress is fragile Yes, this is true.

June 21, 2006, 09:39 PM
One point... I'm not convinced that NICS is a bad thing, really.

It is a prior retstraint on an existing constitutional right. It PRESUMES every gun buyer to be a criminal FIRST.

That is NOT a good thing.

June 22, 2006, 03:19 AM
Telperion put it most aptly.

On a state level, we are shingin for the most part, in the vast majority of states. On a federal level, we've reached an impasse. Getting Congress to not vote to renew the AWB was actually dificult (I don't think either because of pro or anti gun pressure as much as they are reluctant to remove any law. And although NICS allows for instant checks anywhere in the country, yet there is no movement to remove or loosen the '68 restrictions on interstate gun buying, or remove "sporting puposes" clauses. Regardless of what people in most of the states want ( some kind of compromise with GCA '68 so that guns aren't legal for mail order, but also they aren't subject to ATF rule of the day), it's been the law for so long, no one wants to mess with it.

Internationally, we have a band of butchers working to disarm people in a variety of countries so that dictators there can more easily oppress their populations. And spread their message of civilian disarmament abroad, so that the whole world can suffer from unchecked government power.

June 22, 2006, 06:33 AM
yet there is no movement to remove or loosen the '68 restrictions on interstate gun buying,

Actually, it was loosened. You can now buy a long gun in any state from a licensed dealer, provided your state lets you play.

June 22, 2006, 06:53 AM
I'd also add that the Congressional attempt to loosen D.C.'s gun laws is a positive sign at the federal level. Ten years ago, Congress wouldn't have touched that issue with a 10-foot pole. At least they're willing to try.

Same thing with the attack on rogue lawsuits -- though not technically a "loosening" of laws, it is a sign that Congress is willing to nudge things in the right direction.

Nudge is the key word there, folks. We didn't get here overnight. We won't get back by morning.

That's why I see CCW laws as a good thing. Yep, I agree 100% with those who say all states ought to have Vermont/Alaska carry. However, unless the general population learns that large numbers of normal people can carry without bad effect, they'll never accept that.

CCW helps normalize carrying in the public's mind. Should we have to do that? Nope, but we do.

June 22, 2006, 07:10 AM

My point was simple. Ninty-eight percent of people asking NICS permission didn't need their back grounds checked in the first place.

Thats not effective law enforcement.

OK, gotcha. Agreed.

Also agree with the sentiment re NICS that the burden of proof oughtn't be on the honest man to prove he's honest, but for the state to prove the he isn't.

June 22, 2006, 07:13 AM
New York State is worse, and if people like Bloomberg have there way, it's going to be like England around here, no one will own a gun. I've lived in upstate NY all of my life and watched this state and it's politics go right in the toilet. At the most I've got ten years left in this state, and when I retire you can bet it will be to a state where gun owners aren't viewed as the enemy.:cuss:

Thin Black Line
June 22, 2006, 09:07 AM
Better, but could change overnight. This could happen by Executive Order or
a so-called signing statement. Most of you aren't particularly worried about
anything changing right now, but what will you think in 2008? What happens
when Mrs. President and her First Husband are back in the Oval Office?

Oh well, that's two years from now --an eternity for Americans to think about.

If you enjoyed reading about "Is the RKBA better or worse off than 10 years ago?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!