Will guns ever be made illegal to own?


PDA






Ferrari308
July 7, 2006, 12:51 AM
I was reading the newspaper and there was an article about the City of Chicago trying to sue gun manufacturers because Chicago claims that guns are like cigarettes and too dangerous for any person to own. Chicago does not allow anyone to own a gun. So if anyone in these forums moved to chicago, if you took your gun you would be breaking their laws and could be arrested and have your guns taken away.

One example of that law is a guy who heard someone break into his home. The burglar stole some jewlery and ran away. The homeowner has a family, and the next night the burglar came back for more. The man heard the burglar in his daughters bedroom, so the homeowner got his handgun and shot the burglar in his leg. The police came and arrested the homeowner for owning an illegal firearm because all guns are banned. The homeowner spent the night in jail and was charged. Police found the homeowners stolen property in the burglars apartement.

What if congress passed laws like Chicago, and everyone lost the right to have a gun. What would you do? Would you secretly hide your gun and not tell anyone. Would you form an underground group? Or would you comply with the law and turn in your firearm?

I am new to guns and am reading as many posts and forums as I can. There was one thread I was reading about how before 1987 that automatic guns were legal, but then Congress banned any new automatic guns. If Congress can pass that law, who is to say they won't pass a law saying all rifles with more than 300 fps power are banned, or that any calibur bigger than .30 is banned. It appears that Congress has the power to limit what we can purchase.

The reason I am asking these questions is because the UN is pressing USA officials to join the world as a no gun nation. I know the UN has no official power over us, but I bet there are some politicians who agree with the UN. What will happen if these politicians get in power and pass a law taking away the right to own most guns?

If you enjoyed reading about "Will guns ever be made illegal to own?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
JohnKSa
July 7, 2006, 01:10 AM
You mean "Will guns ever be made illegal to own HERE?"

It's already been done most other places...

I don't know. I think there are easier ways to shut us down. The lawsuits were a smart tactic and they surely hurt the gun industry.

Ultimately, I think that noise ordinances, hunting restrictions, EPA restrictions on shooting ranges, marginalization of competitive shooting sports by heavily restricting youth participation, etc. are what will eventually nibble us to death.

M2 Carbine
July 7, 2006, 01:20 AM
Judging by the rate that I've see us losing our 2nd amendment rights in the last 50 years I would say it would surprise me if your grandchildren are allowed to own a BB gun.

Even now we look on it as normal that states can illegally regulate and even ban guns and gun rights. We accept this and call these states "The People's Republic of *******".

Actually we gun owners deserve this kind of treatment because we don't have the backbone to fight for our rights.

It makes me sick that thousands of illegal aliens will take to the streets and influence Washington and millions of gun owners are too lazy to even vote much less demonstrate in the politician's faces.

init6
July 7, 2006, 01:29 AM
There will be a time when all guns are banned. If a city can do it now, it’s going to keep on spreading.

Maybe it's time for a million rife march on Washington DC. I don’t mean a violent one, just a demonstration that people will stand up for their rights.

messiah4linux
July 7, 2006, 01:37 AM
The UN wants our guns, tax our pay, and sales/property tax.

Rep Ron Paul Speaks http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst061906.htm

Limeyfellow
July 7, 2006, 01:39 AM
The UN are saying the US should do things to help stopping the trade of firearms to terrorists by doing the likes of background checks on those buying and not selling arms to countries such as Liberia, Congo and Somolia. They never said anything about banning legal gun ownership by nations that allow gun ownership. It has no binding effect on the US as a soverign nation and it seems to be a big freak out is all we hear.

Its not like the leadership here in the US need the UN to ban anything since its doing a good job on its own. We really saw this throughout the 80s and early 90s. Its getting worse all the time over the past few years especially with imports of firearms, that seems more a job to prop up failing businesses than any realisitic laws. They really let their guard down when Reagon got in power having seemingly forgotton everything he did to neuter California and we got more and more rediclous laws passed, but raving on like madmen with all this "from my dead hands" nonsense hurts the cause of firearm ownership than helps it.

Ferrari308
July 7, 2006, 01:49 AM
I've been searching the web trying to find out how a city can ban guns?? Does the 2nd amendment only apply to the federal government?

I like watching old westerns, and I assume at one time it really was like Bonanza or The Rifleman where every man wore a gunbelt or had a rifle. I'm a little amazed how much society has changed in 100 years, from a time when it was considered normal to have a gun in the house, and today where guns are considered very dangerous and politicians want to regulate them.

Don't Tread On Me
July 7, 2006, 01:59 AM
Will guns ever be made illegal to own?


Sure, if 85% of gun owners continue to not participate politically by joining the NRA, GOA, JPFO, SAF, or any of the 2nd Amendment groups or don't bother to write, call, email, fax or even VOTE...


yeah, they'll be illegal someday. Incrementalism will take its toll.


It's a sad time for the 2nd Amendment when there is something like 60-80 MILLION individual gun owners in America, but only 4 million NRA members, and less than a million for all the other pro-RKBA groups combined.


Way to defend liberty! :rolleyes:

rangerruck
July 7, 2006, 02:08 AM
my troll sense is tingling...

Don't Tread On Me
July 7, 2006, 02:15 AM
Yeah, I hope that's not directed toward me.

There's little sense in freaking out over the UN or other schemes when the real problem is within ourselves. We should try harder to fish in our own pond. 10% more gun owners getting even slightly political would add 6 million more to our efforts - that would more than double our political power to shut down gun control and actually, hopefully someday REPEAL past gun control.


Sometimes I wonder if trying to win over the fence-sitters and anti's is even worth it. If anyone needs winning over, it is the apathetic gun owners of this nation who think freedom is free.

Ferrari308
July 7, 2006, 02:18 AM
my troll sense is tingling...

What makes you say that? I hope it is not directed at me either.

I live in a state where guns are highly regulated. You can't even hold one in your hand without a FOID card, and cities like chicago have banned guns.

It is a slippary slope in my opinion. If Chicago can ban guns, then who is to say the city I live in won't do it next. And if cities can ban guns, then states can ban them too.

Number 6
July 7, 2006, 02:21 AM
The UN are saying the US should do things to help stopping the trade of firearms to terrorists by doing the likes of background checks on those buying and not selling arms to countries such as Liberia, Congo and Somolia. They never said anything about banning legal gun ownership by nations that allow gun ownership. It has no binding effect on the US as a soverign nation and it seems to be a big freak out is all we hear.

+1

Does the 2nd amendment only apply to the federal government?

The second amendment applies to all forms of government in the United States. No state or local law can supercede the constitution.

The legal way that cities are able to regulate firearms is that they are able to ban certain types of guns, but not all guns. This is allowable due to the certain interpretations of the constitution. If you read the second amendment as an absolute right then any regulation by the government upon firearm ownership would not be unconstitutional. Another interpretation of the constitution believes that the second amendment is not an absolute right, therefore reasonable regulations can be placed upon firearm ownership. A good analogy would be how the first amendment right to freedom of speech is viewed. While the first amendment states that our speech is protected, this does not give us the right to say whatever we want. We cannot threaten to kill someone, or yell "fire" in a crowed theatre. Those types of limitations are considered reasonable regulations upon our right to speech. That is part of the logic to how local governments can pass laws that regulate a protected right. The big question of the later interpretation of the constitution is when do the regulations fundamentaly violate the constitution. I am not saying I agree with it, that is just the way that one of the arguments is presented.

Beachmaster
July 7, 2006, 02:58 AM
I was reading the newspaper and there was an article about the City of Chicago trying to sue gun manufacturers because Chicago claims that guns are like cigarettes and too dangerous for any person to own.

Their very own argument is disproved by the fact that they would consider "guns" SAFE for law enforcement personel, and the military, both of which are comprised of humans, no better or worse than the average population. If guns are "too dangerous", then they would also be too dangerous for cops and soldiers.

The only thing "too dangerous" is people. Some, because they are common criminals and prey on other people for their own gain, and some because they are politicians and prey on people for their own gain.

I would rather be surrounded by common criminals, than politicians anyday!

1 old 0311
July 7, 2006, 06:37 AM
Yes they will, and you know who's fault it will be? No not Hillary, Kerry, Sarah Brady, OR the U.N. It will be THE GUN OWNERS FAULT. MOST gun owners I know don't bother to vote. For $10.00, less than a box of good ammo, you can donate to one of our P.A.C.S, who are fighting for us.
Yes Americans WILL loose this right, and it will be OUR FAULT.:(

steve635
July 7, 2006, 11:02 AM
Because if any level of government (other than a select few urban socialist bastions) tried to ban guns outright they would be quickly defeated by an unprecedented groundswell of public defiance. However, as long as they chip away at gun rights (i.e. the old assault rifle ban) rather than attempt a headon assault, they can convince many normally right thinking people that this is the final compromise. Then wait a year or two and introduce the next "final compromise" which only the "gun nuts" will object to. The NRA does a good job of illustrating this slippery slope, but it's hard to get your message out when the media is in bed with your opponents. I think Americans in general will always have some right to bear arms, but if we're not vigilant it could well be confined to 20" barrel bolt action rifles and 28" barrel shotguns.
On the other hand, I think a good sign is that so many red states have adopted less restrictive concealed carry laws. I can remember when in my state it was very difficult to get a CCP, now as long as you're not a felon or a psycho and can show just a smidgen of proficiency you can carry.

Boom-stick
July 7, 2006, 11:11 AM
They won't ever make them Illegal but them could make them so hard to obtain that only a few will bother (legally).

That's what they've done over here:mad:

M2 Carbine
July 7, 2006, 11:36 AM
The advantage (or disadvantage) of living through a fairly long span of time (68 years) is that you have seen change first hand.

As a young kid if I was walking down the city street with a 22 rifle, if anyone took notice at all it would be like a man saying, "Hey boy, can you hit anything with that rifle?".

Now a young kid is expelled from school if he points his finger or draws a picture of a gun.

Kids are being brainwashed in school and adults are being brainwashed by TV to think guns and everything about them is evil.

Our gun rights aren't the only thing we have lost and will continue to lose.:(

Henry Bowman
July 7, 2006, 11:55 AM
We cannot threaten to kill someone, or yell "fire" in a crowed theatre. Those types of limitations are considered reasonable regulations upon our right to speech. That is part of the logic to how local governments can pass laws that regulate a protected right. Parallel limitations on firearms would be laws that say you cannot shoot at people unless it is in self-defense or you cannot shoot at a target across a public road. These are "common sense" regulations on use, not posession. If 1st A regulations were like today's 2nd A infringements , the law would be that you have to apply duct tape to your mouth in public because you might yell "fire" or you can't post anything on the Internet until you have had a background check (for each post) to be sure that you are not a slanderer.

K-Romulus
July 7, 2006, 11:59 AM
Sure, the UN hasn't put private firearms ownership on the chopping block, but that is because the current US ambassador to the UN won't stand for it. It was tried in 2001 and there was a push that failed to "git 'er done" this year, too.

Between 1/3 to over 1/2 of delegates at the UN Small Arms Conference want a global agreement on minimum laws for private ownership, based on the Australian model. http://www.iansa.org/un/review2006/documents/english/IANSA-position-paper-national-firearm-legislation.pdf

Once such an agreement is passed (by majority vote among the member states), it will be the official "global norm" for national gun laws. It is already nearly the unofficial global norm.

The US could ignore this "global norm" at it's peril. The argument is already being framed that "lax gun laws are a human rights violation." Don't underestimate the power that global social pressure may exert on a free state.

When the USSC finally hears a 2d Amendment case and decides that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is subject to "reasonable restrictions," the so-called "global norm" will be described as the standard for what is accepted as "reasonable." The USSC has used this approach in recent cases concerning other issues.

When that 2d Amendment ruling happens, and the wrong sort of legislators get elected in your state, city, or at the Fed level, kiss ALL your semi-auto or pump-action long guns goodbye, along with any pistol over .38 cal, when those legislators adopt the "reasonable, global norm of the Australian gun laws."

Oh, yeah, don't forget: under the Australian model, you must also prove a "need" for each one of the other non-banned guns you own, and self-defense is not a government-approved "need."

What kind of laws are we talking about? These are laws that are all on the books in some sort or fashion in different places around the US:

http://www.iansa.org/members/IANSA-media-briefing-low-res.pdf

Governments should agree to:
• Promote gun owner responsibility by requiring all firearms to be registered. Individuals permitted to own guns and ammunition must be held to account for their security, use and misuse.

• Define minimum criteria for private ownership of guns with a national system of licensing. These should include proven capacity to handle a gun safely; knowledge of the relevant law; age limit; proof of valid reason; and a security screening based on criminal record or history of violence, including intimate partner violence. Licences should also be required for ammunition.

• Prohibit civilian possession of military-style rifles, including semi-automatic rifles that can be converted to fully automatic fire and semi-automatic variants of military weapons.

• Block access to guns for people with a history of violence, particularly against intimate partners or family members.

• Introduce safe storage requirements to prevent gun accidents, suicide, misuse and theft.

• Regulate manufacturers and dealers. A national register of all manufacturers and their distribution network, including firearm dealers, would help prevent diversion to illicit use.

NineseveN
July 7, 2006, 12:57 PM
While the first amendment states that our speech is protected, this does not give us the right to say whatever we want. We cannot threaten to kill someone, or yell "fire" in a crowed theatre. Those types of limitations are considered reasonable regulations upon our right to speech. That is part of the logic to how local governments can pass laws that regulate a protected right.

Excerpt from an article I wrote last year:



Now, some will say, that there is no absolute freedom of speech because you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater, so the whole firearms rights issue is moot. They’ll say that you may have firearms, but there are restrictions, just like there are restrictions on the speech you are allowed to engage in. But the example of yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater is a flawed argument. That is not control; misuse or abuse of freedoms is not exercising them. The freedom is for one to be able to engage in free speech, but misusing that for unlawful purposes is not protected under the First Amendment. The same parallels can be drawn with firearms. According to the Second Amendment, we have an inalienable right to keep and bear arms. That does not mean that we can use them for unlawful purposes such as robbing a bank (against the law with or without a firearm), firing into a public crowd for no reason or shooting others without sufficient grounds for self-defense. This “fire in a crowded theater” example simply does not work because apples are being compared to oranges. You are free to say ‘fire’ all you like. You can even exclaim it in a crowded theater, so long as there truly is a fire and your intent is to inform the moviegoers for their own safety, not to cause a riot or a panic when no such condition exists, thus breaking the law. You are not free to use that word, or any other to commit a crime or endanger others. You may not use provocative speech to incite a riot. You may not use the freedom of speech as a tool for treason against the government.


Sorry, but that dog won't hunt. :cool:

LightningJoe
July 7, 2006, 01:27 PM
The general tenor of the responses seems too pessimistic. Will guns ever be made illegal? Only if you allow it. There are people in America who want Britain's gun laws. They're lying low right now, at least legislatively. They had their legislative salad days back in the sixties, seventies and eighties when an eventual gun ban seemed inevitable. Then, they faded significantly for ten years or so. Some high-profile spree killings (such as Columbine) revived their legislative hopes briefly, but that seems to have been a blip. Now, they're trying to work through the courts. Hit'em in the wallet, is their new philosophy. Lawsuits have driven some American industries into the ground (e.g. small aircraft manufacture), so maybe the gun industry can be sued into unprofitability. So far, the courts aren't helping them out much. We'll see.

geekWithA.45
July 7, 2006, 01:54 PM
Well,

Let's assume that "they" outlaw the posession of arms.

That undoes the 2nd.

The 2nd is intrinsic to the Constitution, and was a condition of the Constitution's acceptance by the states.

The constitution unravels, the Republic along with it, and all bets are off.

Soybomb
July 7, 2006, 02:13 PM
Chicago does not allow anyone to own a gun.
In all fairness to the facts, chicago has banned handguns that weren't registered before, I believe, 1983. That is not a ban on all guns.

And yes the bill of rights grants you protection from the fed but not your state, at least in practice even if we may disagree with that judgement. The 14th amendment over time has incorporated much of the bill of rights to apply to the states as well, but not the 2nd amendment. For more information google something like "bill of rights incorporation"

Ferrari308
July 7, 2006, 02:21 PM
I agree with those who believe the state won't outright ban guns, but they will continue to make it harder to obtain a gun legally. Maybe it will be in the form of higher yearly dues to obtain a FOID card. Right now it is cheap, but if the state wanted to increase the dues to $100 a year, who could stop them? Then in another couple years, the dues go up to $400 a year. The state could force all gun owners to register every gun. My one friend with a large gun collection told me he would never register his guns, because he strongly believes the second amendment was added to protect lawful citizens against a bad government. His argument is "Where would we be if our founding fathers didn't have any guns?".

sturmruger
July 7, 2006, 02:21 PM
As paranoid as people are I doubt there will ever be a Nationwide gun ban. I can see large cities or liberal states banning guns.

Sam Adams
July 7, 2006, 02:26 PM
If 1st A regulations were like today's 2nd A infringements , the law would be that you have to apply duct tape to your mouth in public because you might yell "fire" or you can't post anything on the Internet until you have had a background check (for each post) to be sure that you are not a slanderer.

That may be a bit mild - I'd say that you'd have to have your tongue removed and you wouldn't be allowed to have an internet connection. THAT is what a ban really means, in 1st Amendment terms.

And, as NineseveN has said, that dog won't hunt.

orangelo
July 7, 2006, 02:28 PM
Nah they won't ban guns. They will just make registration required for them all. Then they ban registration.

Just like Washington DC. Just like Chicago. Just like the 1986 MG registration ban.

That's why the NRA is right, registration WILL eventually lead to a complete ban.

Sistema1927
July 7, 2006, 03:07 PM
Yeah, and you weren't able to get a drink in Chicago during Prohibition either.

Vairochana
July 7, 2006, 08:29 PM
In Australia "self defence" in not considered a "genuine reason' for owning a gun

gunsmith
July 7, 2006, 10:02 PM
I am a life member of the NRA, I've got the cert, the leather jacket and card...

I am also (so far this year) below the poverty level and up the excrement creek without a paddle $$$ wise, I am looking at selling most of my guns/guitars to get by...I've made some poor decisions this year but the one thing I don't regret is my Life NRA membership...

If a poor bloke like me can manage it, so can you!

MachIVshooter
July 8, 2006, 01:34 PM
The UN are saying the US should do things to help stopping the trade of firearms to terrorists by doing the likes of background checks on those buying and not selling arms to countries such as Liberia, Congo and Somolia. They never said anything about banning legal gun ownership by nations that allow gun ownership. It has no binding effect on the US as a soverign nation and it seems to be a big freak out is all we hear.

Make no mistake, the ultimate goal of the UN (specifically Kofi Annan) is a total gun ban , worldwide. They use sneaky, reasonable sounding rhetoric such as "illicit" and "wrong hands". These are vague terms and can be easily abused. "Illicit" will be anything that the UN determines such, and "wrong hands" will end up meaning civilian hands.

If we turn this issue over to UN control, it will be just a matter of time before they disarm (or attempt to disarm) the American public. They'll start with regulation, then bans and when the last of us refuse to give up our arms, they'll slap UN arm bands on our compliant LEO's and start going house to house.

And if you think our own LEO's and military will not disarm us, all one has to do is look back a year at NO, LA. They may not want to do it, but when they face consequences they will.

Number 6
July 8, 2006, 05:57 PM
Make no mistake, the ultimate goal of the UN (specifically Kofi Annan) is a total gun ban , worldwide. They use sneaky, reasonable sounding rhetoric such as "illicit" and "wrong hands". These are vague terms and can be easily abused. "Illicit" will be anything that the UN determines such, and "wrong hands" will end up meaning civilian hands.

If we turn this issue over to UN control, it will be just a matter of time before they disarm (or attempt to disarm) the American public. They'll start with regulation, then bans and when the last of us refuse to give up our arms, they'll slap UN arm bands on our compliant LEO's and start going house to house.

And if you think our own LEO's and military will not disarm us, all one has to do is look back a year at NO, LA. They may not want to do it, but when they face consequences they will.

How would the UN ever get the authority to violate our constitution? Even if the UN banned gun ownership, such a resolution would have to be ratified by congress, signed by the president, and pass judicial review. Such a prospect is not very likely since it violates sovereignty of our country. How would the UN then take control of our police forces? The UN is a purposely weak organization and would be loath to upset two of its largest donors, the US and Norway, both of which have large gun cultures.

As for the definition of illicit, the UN has stated that it leaves it up to each country to determine what a legal and illegal firearm is. Illicit is then a weapon that is brought into a country that violates that country’s laws. So China selling fully automatic weapons to non-state actors in the US would be illegal, in the same way Sudan arming the Lord's Resistance Army would also be an illicit trade in small arms. Illicit is not as murky a definition as one might think.

akodo
July 8, 2006, 07:14 PM
They never said anything about banning legal gun ownership by nations that allow gun ownership.

You haven't been listening obviously, because yes, yes they have. It just isn't included in the current version they are pushing right now.

Another UN topic here just a day or two ago the UN rep on this issue said that they only wanted to go after those involved in the illicit gun trade, and later defined that as anyone in posession of a firearm not registered with their government. That, boys and girls, is most gunowners in teh USA.


But in general I agree our rights are most at risk through chipping away our freedoms, by making it harder to things like transport your gun to and from the range/hunting grounds, elimination of hunting rights, applying taxes on ammunition (it only takes 1 bullet to kill, 1000 to be a good shot, who will the tax hurt? the murderers? I think not) etc etc

regarding:
How would the UN ever get the authority to violate our constitution?
The UN passes a restriction, and our congress authorizes it. You are right, the UN is below our fed government as far a who exerts the most control, in reality they have as much power as a 'citizens advisory board' However, people in our government, and many voters, listen to the UN. Unfortunately, many voters seem to believe that if our current system is local==>state==>Federal, then they take the next step of putting Global above federal. Now, in general I am against any global government, except perhaps one taht adopted teh USA's bill of rights (setting the citizen above the global government) and siome sort of balance of powers. But as it sits now, the UN, our only form of 'global government' is a travisty. Two bit nations get as big of a say as populous nations. Not that weighting votes by population woudl work either, thanks to the biggest population nations being tyranies and not democracies.

ilbob
July 8, 2006, 07:27 PM
I like watching old westerns, and I assume at one time it really was like Bonanza or The Rifleman where every man wore a gunbelt or had a rifle. I'm a little amazed how much society has changed in 100 years, from a time when it was considered normal to have a gun in the house, and today where guns are considered very dangerous and politicians want to regulate them.

I used to be real interested in western history. The plain facts are that most people could not afford handguns. They were just too expensive. And despite what you saw on TV and the movies, lever action rifles were not all that common either for the same reason. Most people made do with surplus military single shot rifles, or even muzzle loaders. if you don't believe this, look at the production numbers of both lever action rifles and CF revolvers during that period of time versus the population in the west.

Lawmen normally carried black powder shotguns as their primary weapon.

Know why Bat Masterson was called Bat? It was because he carried one around with him and was known to use it.

Number 6
July 8, 2006, 08:47 PM
You haven't been listening obviously, because yes, yes they have. It just isn't included in the current version they are pushing right now.


Actually I have been paying attention and have read a lot of the documentation that has come out of that conference. There have been a few countries that have advocated severe restrictions on civilian ownership, but those are outliers from what most of the other countries have advocated. Pointing to those outliers and claiming that this is indicative of the whole is inaccurate. It would be like claiming that Dianne Fienstein's comments are indicative of all senators.

The other document that people have pointed to contains recommendations that the panel has made. Whether any of those make it into a final draft of a resolution is questionable, and whether or not such a resolution would be binding is also questionable.

Rimmer
July 8, 2006, 09:04 PM
Yes they will, and you know who's fault it will be? No not Hillary, Kerry, Sarah Brady, OR the U.N. It will be THE GUN OWNERS FAULT. MOST gun owners I know don't bother to vote. For $10.00, less than a box of good ammo, you can donate to one of our P.A.C.S, who are fighting for us.
Yes Americans WILL loose this right, and it will be OUR FAULT.

Well said. If anything gets me going it's the armchair talk the talk attitude but most are to damn lazy to address an envelope with a check.

I re-entered the firearms sport 3 years ago after a 25 year absence. Why? Because I saw yet another freedom quietly slipping out from under our feet. When the second dies it sure as hell won't be my fault.

Otherguy Overby
July 8, 2006, 09:17 PM
ilbob:

Know why Bat Masterson was called Bat? It was because he carried one around with him and was known to use it.

Actually, it was because his given name was Bartholomiew... He never liked it.

minuteman1970
July 8, 2006, 10:42 PM
They are chipping away at our rights, little by little. Whatever is not banned today, will be tomorrow's new "loophole".

akodo
July 9, 2006, 01:49 AM
number 6, I read the situation differently.

I see the recomendations that the panel has made as an indication of the direction they are heading. After all, when has a beaurocracy ever written a set of restrictions and then lessened them? Rare as hen's teeth. However, taking last season's set of restrictions and expanding them is the way of the world, in my view.

cslinger
July 9, 2006, 01:55 AM
The right answer to this is simply "Not if I can help it!!!"

I vote.
I write my elected officials.
I bring new shooters into the fold.
I do not hide my shooters ethic.

We need to show everybody we are not a crazy fringe group. We need to show them we are the American ideal.

Thats my two cents.

pharmer
July 9, 2006, 11:47 AM
Yep. First ban lead bullets; affects both factory and reloads. ATF already has a list of 8 (I think) metals not allowed for bullets. No bullets, guns aren't very useful. And most Americans who are law abiding won't break any law no matter what they say on the internet. Joe

Ala Dan
July 9, 2006, 11:53 AM
Yep, if folks cave into the "Clinton Cronie" trap I could see our 2nd amendment
rights vanishing, right before our eyes.:eek: :uhoh:

OldSchooler
July 9, 2006, 12:41 PM
Will guns ever be made illegal to own?

Probably. As governments expand, the one thing they most often do is control the ability of their citizens to resist the will of said government.
It happened in ancient civilizations, it happens in modern municipalities, most often in the name of the party and it's ability to protect you in ways that you cannot (protection at the cost of liberty, alas).

As long as the fostered mentality is "they need to do something about that and should pass a law," there will always be someone willing to control the efforts to do so. That is where you should draw the line, behind which you fight. When you hear someone say that, it is time to respond.

Law, order and dogmatic control only works in close knit groups where there is fear of something outside and the desire to have someone else control such things so you, the member, dont have to. There is plenty of fear these days, and plenty of governmental efforts to "control" the causes of it. From hunger to terrorists, the boys in the capital are looking out for you...and most folks meekly expect them to, these days.

Unfortunately, as indicated by the above, we are losing the will among the general population to be self supportive and are ever more willing to relinquish control of our lives to the "Man."

Will this be complete in our lifetime? Probably not. But, grim to say, it has already begun, as you've mentioned. Go to the used book store and spend about a $1.00 to get these classic books (it's still amazing what value a dollar will bring):

"1984", by George Orwell.
"Brave New World", by Aldous Huxley

Read them and compare notes. We are not facing new frontiers here, brother; these things have been foreseen.

50caliber123
July 9, 2006, 01:36 PM
I hate to sound mean but, They can have my guns when I run out of bullets. I will never give them up. I am a registered voter, and vote every election I can (Federal, State, Local). I vote to hold on to our rights, and it is often a battle of the lesser of two evils. I hope that through voting, lobbying, and ultimately peace, we will hold on and maybe even win some rights back. If they still come for them, see above. I won't just hand them over. I try to do my part to help RKBA.

Zundfolge
July 9, 2006, 02:01 PM
If gun bans and increasing gun control are a guarantee then NOW is the time to do that thing that we don't talk about here on The High Road. :fire:

I think too often we in the RKBA movement have been conditioned to look at the glass as completely empty as opposed to half full.

There are good signs if you just look.
The AWB died (just months before it did I would NEVER have believed that such a thing was EVER possible).
Only TWO states still ban CCW.
Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws are popping up all over the place.
Canada is planning on scrapping its gun registry.
Gore lost in 2000 in big part because of his anti-gun stance
Democrats are backing away from gun control (and when a Dem comes out pro-gun it doesn't instantly end his career like it used to).
The UN dog and pony show over the fourth was pretty much a bust.
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Not only did it pass, but it did without any new anti-gun crap tagged on (unlike the 1986 FOPA).


I'm sure there's more that can be added to that list, but you get the idea.

Incrementalism is what got us where we are today, and instead of bitching and moaning about how "this is futile...they will eventually get our guns...boo hoo" we need to go on the offensive ... start pushing for the incremental dismantling of the BS gun laws on the books.

I honestly believe that we could start chipping away at the '68 GCA and '34 NFA by pushing to de-regulate suppressors, and pushing even harder to force states and the fed.gov to abide by the good parts of the '86 FOPA (maybe reverse the MG ban part of the FOPA).


If we constantly stay on the defensive and never take the offensive then the only offensive action that will be left to us is violent revolution (which will fail because none of us will start shooting until its WAY too late).

Otherguy Overby
July 9, 2006, 02:54 PM
Could the next step be bans by bureaucrats? We've seen this in places like California and Massachussetts already.

They'll set up something like a firearm safety bureau which then creates regulations ostensibly for "safety" which will require integral locks or other features. IOW, after a certain date all new firearms must include these if sold to the public. Older guns without safety features would have to be deactivated or turned in at a later date.

Ammunition (as previously mentioned) will be ruled hazardous and you'd then need a federal license to obtain it. Making the license hard to get or expensive would be easy for the government. Reloading equipment might then be licensed and regulated. Annual EPA monitored clean up could be required at ranges. Shooting could then be limited to licensed and regulated ranges except for our "right" to hunt when allowed.

Added: The "easter egg" in last year's firearm manufacturer's protection act banning frivolous lawsuits may come back to haunt us with the bit about ammunition that can penetrate body armor.

Sheesh, there's plenty of ways to infringe on gun rights without actually banning them. They did it way back in 1934, again in 1968, 1986, 1994 (which is the only one to sunset). There's been executive orders, arbitrary regulation interpretation and the hits just keep coming.

Yes, we've made some progress on the CCW issues in many states, but look at all the restrictions required in most states. Also fees and licenses required for a right?

The only way to stop the antis is to pry the legislative/regulatory pens out of their cold, dead hands.

Taurus 66
July 9, 2006, 06:09 PM
When I turn on the tv and in the Rochester news is another two shooting deaths each and every day (EVERY DAY!), then think of all the other cities like New York, LA, Chicago, Detroit ... all much bigger cities with greater numbers of this senseless gun violence, I honestly wonder how much more we can take of this (speaking as a nation). With more gun related homicides comes more grieving mothers and more supporters of gun control. Will our gun rights reach the breaking point? I say "Yes". There is coming a time when law abiding gun owners will be given an opportunity to peacefully surrender their firearms and all because of what the criminals did.

gunslinger15
July 9, 2006, 06:11 PM
Id liek to see them try and take guns away from 80 million gun owners:neener: damn shure they wont get mine without shooting me dead first. I dotn mind dieing to keep the right to keep and bear arms for my kids and grandkids... besides id have nothing to do if it wasnt for shooting and hunting or at least nothing worth living for.:scrutiny:

Finch
July 9, 2006, 06:38 PM
I don't think it is a matter of if guns are made illegal to own. To me, it is a matter of when laws are put in the books banning private firearm ownership, will anybody follow them? "Nope officer, I have no guns, then all accidentally fell over board last week when I went fishing."

evan price
July 9, 2006, 07:06 PM
They won't ban guns.

They'll find a way to ban ammunition. Wasn't there an attempt a few years ago to try to get the EPA to regulate small arms ammunition by classifying it as a "Hazardous Substance" that failed due to the EPA not wanting that much more red tape without funding, & that funding was not provided?

To be honest I AM surprised that nobody yet has found an effective way to control ammo, either factory ammo, or else reloaders' supplies of primers and powder.

IMHO the most dangerous threat to the Second Amendment is actually already in the US Constitution.
I am speaking of the Eighteenth Amendment. You know, "Control of Intoxicating Liqours"?
18A was REPEALED by the Twenty-First Amendment. Interesting point of law because it opens the door for ANY Amendment to be repealed by a following Amendment, LIKE SO:

Amendment XXVIII
Section 1. The Second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.


Section 2. The manufacture, storage, ownership, transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of firearms of any type is hereby prohibited.


Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.

Looks pretty official doesn't it?

All I did was modify 21A to change Section I to say, "SECOND" instead of "Eighteenth". And I changed Section II a little.

Now, as scary as that piece of fictitious legislature looks, remember that it is NOT REAL and we as 2A supporters must do all in our power to prevent it from EVER being real. CAREFULLY READ THE THIRD ARTICLE! This was required in 21A and if a travesty such as the above "amendment" ever came about it would be still in the states' power to prevent it from being passed.

Read my tagline. Defending the constitution includes, preventing it from being rewritten to reduce liberty. "All enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC..."

Car Knocker
July 9, 2006, 07:29 PM
in the Rochester news is another two shooting deaths each and every day (EVERY DAY!)

Methinks you're exagerating slightly. That's 720 murders a year involving firearms in Rochester. Plus any beating deaths, knifings, etc. 2004 only had 36 murders listed for Rochester. http://rochesterny.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm 54 murders in 2005 (39 by with firearms). http://www.rochesterdandc.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060108/NEWS01/601080316 Surely there hasn't been a 2,000% increase in murders in the last 2 years.

Billll
July 9, 2006, 07:35 PM
Yes, we're making progerss, but we can't let up. Over in the UK there's a group that would like to make olympic pistol shooting legal there again. Not IPSC, or paper shooting or anything else, just Olympic pistol shooting.

http://www.glossover.co.uk/rts/forum.asp

My observation was that they would have better luck lobbying for CCD, since olympic shooting comes under the ministery of Sports (!) and self defense is a general public safety concern.

Over there, NRA membership costs about 3 times what it does here, and they aren't allowed to lobby, as they've registered as a charity, and thus get some government funds, which they would otherwise lose. I suggested that they contact the GOA about setting up a similar umbrella organization to lobby for them.

Feel free to drop on over and lend support.

Taurus 66
July 9, 2006, 08:14 PM
Methinks you're exagerating slightly.

Of course I am Car Knocker, but every day as of lately there has been a rash of shootings. The violence is really escalating in Rochester. This is good stuff for those mentally disturbed people known as antis'.

akodo
July 9, 2006, 08:16 PM
I think Zund's list is right. Us gunowners have finally started to gain a little traction.

I believe both the pro and anti groups are playing a game of inches, like football, pushing the ball toward one endzone or the other. They aren't going to relent, so just because we had a few small positive pushes, doesn't mean we should either.

That's why I disagree with number 6's reading of the UN proposal regarding firearms looking only at the proposal as it currently stands. Their comments and suggestions in confrence shows me that the current move is just step 1, and that they desire more steps later. That's why I do like it when us gunowners get up in arms at the beginning. Say NO to the UN, say NO to waiting periods just for the purpose of waiting, say NO to gun registration, because all these are just the tip of the iceburg

evan price
July 10, 2006, 05:13 AM
So how many of the Rochester shooting deaths were from legally owned, legally used weapons?

Tried'nTrue
July 10, 2006, 07:59 AM
As I see it, there most certainly is a push to criminalize the private ownership of firearms here in the USA. However, it's a battle of attrition and a battle of the mind. If those who control the media can convince the public majority that firearms are inherently evil and that only "official" people should own guns, then the majority public will do the work of banning guns. It's a battle that is being pre-emptively fought by convincing the citizenry that, in a nutshell, the government is inherently good and that we as people can't or shouldn't inherently look after ourselves. In short, we are being brainwashed.

It's happenning on-screen all the time, and not only in the movies. The example of the Rochester news repeatedly reporting on gun murders, without giving any counter examples of gun self-defense, is a fear tactic, used to instill in people the idea that guns are synonymous with murder. The brainwashing is happenning in schools, at both the K-12 levels and the collegiate level. As another poster pointed out, a student who shapes his hand as a gun can now be expelled from school. This sends the definite message that guns are bad and wrong and anyone who pursues them will reap swift, detrimental consequences.

Don't be fooled - there are those who wish to control us, we the people, and are taking decided steps to do so. I believe the UN is a glaring example of how those who wish to control are seeking not merely a country, not soley a continent, but an entire planet, piece by piece. It is a war, it is insidious. It is largely a battle of the mind. Be aware and awake. I know this post sounds dire, but I am firmly convinced of what I've written.

Matt King
July 10, 2006, 01:41 PM
The only way that firearms would ever be illegal to own would be if by some chance an ultra-anti was elected President, Persuaded Congress to repeal the Second amendment, and allowed the United State's at the urging of the UN, to join the Ranks of Britan.

All of which are very unlikey. The way that I see it we are more likely to see more Restictions on guns,(i.e. as was it was under Clinton.) then ever actually coming to the point of a total ban.

Bobhwry
July 10, 2006, 04:40 PM
Can Congress repeal a Constitutional Amendment without a National referendum??

Ferrari308
July 10, 2006, 05:03 PM
Can Congress repeal a Constitutional Amendment without a National referendum??

They did repeal prohibition with a second amendment.

I doubt we'll get an amendment taking away the right to bear arms. Congress will regulate guns more, require people to register, raise fees, prohibit certain types of guns, and make it more difficult to own guns. It would require both houses to be liberal and the president to be liberal. I don't think it could pass if either house had a republican majority.

NineseveN
July 10, 2006, 06:43 PM
I doubt we'll get an amendment taking away the right to bear arms. Congress will regulate guns more, require people to register, raise fees, prohibit certain types of guns, and make it more difficult to own guns. It would require both houses to be liberal and the president to be liberal. I don't think it could pass if either house had a republican majority.

As the party lines continue to blur, you're gonna be mighty surprised someday methinks.

Kentak
July 10, 2006, 07:01 PM
Yes.

progunner1957
July 10, 2006, 07:32 PM
Incrementalism is what got us where we are today, and instead of bitching and moaning about how "this is futile...they will eventually get our guns...boo hoo" we need to go on the offensive ... start pushing for the incremental dismantling of the BS gun laws on the books.
I don't see any meaningful dismantling of gun laws ever happening - can you imagine the leftist/socialist furor if there were, say, a movement to do away with GCA '68?

I was dumbfounded that the Clinton gun ban actually did sunset - I fugured somehow the antigun bigots in Congress would keep it alive.
IMHO the most dangerous threat to the Second Amendment is actually already in the US Constitution.
I am speaking of the Eighteenth Amendment. You know, "Control of Intoxicating Liqours"?
18A was REPEALED by the Twenty-First Amendment. Interesting point of law because it opens the door for ANY Amendment to be repealed by a following Amendment
Yes, the 18th amendment was repealed by the 21st amendment. The 18th amendment was not a part of the Bill of Rights, though.

IMO if Congress were to try to repeal a part of the Bill of Rights, it would not go over as easily as the 21st amendment did. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's what I think.

If you enjoyed reading about "Will guns ever be made illegal to own?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!