Gun Control is out in DC...


PDA






OldSchooler
July 11, 2006, 07:41 PM
An article in the current issue issue of USN&WR is of interest here. In summary, it has the advocates ogf gun control, the dems and liberals, failing fast when they side with gun control advocacy.

As evidence, several pro gun initiatives are expeceted to pass the Congrees easily this session, as gun control advocates find themselves increasingly marginalized and largely ignored. A decade ago the gun lobby seemed in trouble with the Brady initiatives and assualt bans of the 90's coming on strong. Now, gun control is quickly becoming a no-touch issue for Democrats.

"It's different now. Those were the glory years", said Paul Helmke, CEO of the Brady Center to Control gun Violence. (One suspects he said it with some sense of loss. - David)

As we know, the assault weapon ban was allowed to languish into obscurity, CCW restrictions are steadily being lifted nationwide and according to Wayne LaPierre, of the NRA, gun-owning freedoms are "...in the best shape they've been in decades."

Currently, a new bill is being proposed that will prohibit police from confiscating firearms during emergencies, a response to such foolishness as was seen during Hurricane Katrina. "Five years ago, such a proposal would have been sneered at; now it is sure to become law," says OK Senator Dan Boren - D, a strong gun-rights supporter.

Gun control of some kind is still favored by many, according to polls. But it has become an emotional "us against them" issue, a make or break matter. As such, it stirs up lots of ire - and money - from both sides.

However, gun-rights groups have given over 14 times as much in political donations as gun-control supporters, according to Ohio's Second Amendments Research Center's. Saul Cornell.

The recommendations from John's Hopkins' Center for Gun Policy and research now, is to target unscrupulous gun dedalers (are there any of those??) and stay away from political hot potatoes like bans and restrictions.

So let us say that our side is winning battles and, one hopes, the war. Keep your pressure on, join the NRA and let your representatives know that we recognize that personal security is in our hands at the moment of threat, and that we wish to pursue our lawful use of firearms ~ ~ and the rights which secure it.

Take heart, fellows - there is hope in our lifetime.

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun Control is out in DC..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
tube_ee
July 11, 2006, 08:59 PM
Though many here are loath to admit it, I think the worm has turned. I'm a frequent contributor to left-wing boards and blogs, and gun control is dying as an issue. When the current Dem leadership passes into history, it'll be done.

The current head of the DNC had a top rating from the NRA as a governor, and leftie, Birkenstock-wearing Vermont leads the nation in lack of gun restrictions. 20 years ago, that would have been unthinkable.

--Shannon

longeyes
July 11, 2006, 09:16 PM
It is in the nature of tyrants to disarm the peasants. Most of this planet is still run by tyrants. Be afraid, be very afraid.

PinnedAndRecessed
July 11, 2006, 09:26 PM
Those were the glory years

Translated: "The gravy days are gone. We're in real danger of having to find real work that actually might require some brains. I'm doomed."

Silver Bullet
July 11, 2006, 09:28 PM
That article is on page 47 of the July 17, 2006 issue, for those who want to read the whole thing ("Packing Heat on the Hill").

My favorite sentence is

Gun-control proponents should avoid efforts like the assault weapons ban that were more effective at agitating gun owners than at preventing gun violence ...

The article pointed out that we have made progress during this administration on several fronts: repeal of the AWB, shield of gun makers, and "eased restrictions" on CCW. And it's very important that we make progress when the pro-guns are in the majority; otherwise, each time the anti-gun guys are in control we keep ratcheting backwards.

mzmtg
July 11, 2006, 09:53 PM
Is there any risk that this push to go after bad gun dealers could codify some of the BATFExyz's crazy "policies" into law?

bigun15
July 11, 2006, 09:59 PM
"It's different now. Those were the glory years", said Paul Helmke, CEO of the Brady Center to Control gun Violence. (One suspects he said it with some sense of loss. - David)

That might end up in my sig line. I like it.

mp510
July 11, 2006, 10:16 PM
When the current Dem leadership passes into history, it'll be done.
The change may already be beginning. I know the Hillary's, Schumers and Kerry's rot- but even Reid (senate majority leader) is rated in the B range.

Glad to see the people of DC may get some protection.

Igloodude
July 12, 2006, 07:37 AM
The current head of the DNC had a top rating from the NRA as a governor, and leftie, Birkenstock-wearing Vermont leads the nation in lack of gun restrictions. 20 years ago, that would have been unthinkable.

As far as I know (having lived in Vermont for a few years a while back), Vermont has always led the nation in lack of gun restrictions, as they've never had a law restricting concealed carry in the first place. The population centers of Vermont might be progressive/socialist, but the rural areas are populated almost purely by the most red-state-ish of folks.

That aside, the article makes me all warm and fuzzy inside. :D

Camp David
July 12, 2006, 08:04 AM
Glad to see the people of DC may get some protection.

Most of the sane folks have moved out of DC (either north toward Maryland or south to Virginia) in order to own handguns and protect themselves... I doubt strongly that DC will ever change its discriminatory gun rules and prohibition of handguns... Just last evening there were two more attacks on the National Mall in DC (http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0706/343823.html) and about five homocides in the city...(JUST LAST NIGHT)...

Touring the Capital City is no longer safe... The Mayor, however, says nothing about these National Mall attacks, muggings, rapes, and shootings... tourists are a target in DC!

Check out crime rates for DC here (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm)...1960-2000, simply awful...

RealGun
July 12, 2006, 08:57 AM
Currently, a new bill is being proposed that will prohibit police from confiscating firearms during emergencies, a response to such foolishness as was seen during Hurricane Katrina. "Five years ago, such a proposal would have been sneered at; now it is sure to become law," says OK Senator Dan Boren - D, a strong gun-rights supporter.

Under what premise will such a federal bill claim jurisdiction? It won't be the Second Amendment. A funded mandate maybe, but I can't imagine how that would work.

RealGun
July 12, 2006, 08:59 AM
The article pointed out that we have made progress during this administration on several fronts: repeal of the AWB, shield of gun makers, and "eased restrictions" on CCW.

Proliferation of concealed carry is to no credit of any "administration". That has been occurring at the State level.

RealGun
July 12, 2006, 09:01 AM
Glad to see the people of DC may get some protection.

That will be a hard fought battle that will require the full attention of gun owners. Do the high fives when it actually happens.

antsi
July 12, 2006, 09:05 AM
-------quote-------
Is there any risk that this push to go after bad gun dealers could codify some of the BATFExyz's crazy "policies" into law?
--------------------

If the anti-gun people are pushing it, you can bet it is bad for us.

Often on this board people fall into the trap of saying, "that's a problem for the dealers and manufacturers, but it doesn't affect my rights." Don't fall into that trap.

Since it is becoming unfashionable to go after the gun owners, they're switching to the dealers and manufacturers. But they wouldn't be doing this if it didn't advance their ultimate agenda of disarming the US citizen.

TIZReporter
July 12, 2006, 09:10 AM
When the anti-gunners are twarted in one area, they shift to work in other areas.

They thought the UN conference would be a huge success for them, it wasn't.

In Canada however the new Conservative government appears willing to continue acting like Liberals (http://www.theinfozone.net/salw-news.html).

South Africa is facing new very harsh laws.

While what happens in other countries might not seem important to Americans remember that there are many trade agreements that America signs and gun owners are affected by and often not aware of.

How many here know about the ramifications of the Marking and Tracing OAS treaty?

TIZ

ilbob
July 12, 2006, 09:23 AM
Currently, a new bill is being proposed that will prohibit police from confiscating firearms during emergencies, a response to such foolishness as was seen during Hurricane Katrina. "Five years ago, such a proposal would have been sneered at; now it is sure to become law," says OK Senator Dan Boren - D, a strong gun-rights supporter.


Under what premise will such a federal bill claim jurisdiction? It won't be the Second Amendment. A funded mandate maybe, but I can't imagine how that would work.

How about the specific authority of the 14th amendment that grants congress the right to pass laws to insure states do not violate our liberties?

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The second amendment clearly guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms. The 14th amendment says congress can enforce that right when a state might want to infringe that right.

mrmeval
July 12, 2006, 09:34 AM
One thing that needs to be done is to protect gun dealers from the predations of the ATF.

Henry Bowman
July 12, 2006, 09:44 AM
Since it is becoming unfashionable to go after the gun owners, they're switching to the dealers and manufacturers.That has been my observation as well.

Zrex
July 12, 2006, 09:47 AM
gun-rights groups have given over 14 times as much in political donations as gun-control supporters

And yet, with a republican house, senate and white house, we still can not repeal the 89 import ban, the 86 MG ban, the sporting use language of the GCA, or anything else. The only way AWB vanished is because of the sunset. This is pitiful.

Camp David
July 12, 2006, 09:49 AM
It would be a interesting endeavor for someone who has legal connections and time to devote to the task to apply for a Gun Store permit in the District of Columbia, with the point being to sue the City when your permit is denied. There are no current gun stores now but under the law it might be interesting (and perhaps profitable) to sue for the right...

progunner1957
July 12, 2006, 09:58 AM
And yet, with a republican house, senate and white house, we still can not repeal the 89 import ban, the 86 MG ban, the sporting use language of the GCA, or anything else. The only way AWB vanished is because of the sunset. This is pitiful.The reason for that is, we now have "moderate" :barf: Republicans, not conservative Republicans. I fear that we may never again have honest-to-God conservatives running the show.

All things considered, our right to arms is one hell of alot better off than it could be - like during the Clinton regieme. I am cautiously optimistic at this point - alot has been accomplished for our cause in the last few years.

The acid test will come if Democrats/leftists/socialists regain control of Congress this November and if (God forbid) one of theirs wins the White House in 2008. If they are handed the keys to the kingdom, I fear they will return to their antigun bigot ways. If they do, I just hope and pray that we will be able to somehow stop them.

Silver Bullet
July 12, 2006, 10:01 AM
Proliferation of concealed carry is to no credit of any "administration". That has been occurring at the State level.
That partly why I used the word during and not of or from.

The other reason is that CCW started expanding before this administration.

cuchulainn
July 12, 2006, 10:03 AM
tube_ee: Though many here are loath to admit it, I think the worm has turned.The worm turned quite some time ago.

The high-water mark of U.S. gun control was six years ago -- Mother's Day 2000 (the Million Mom March). Since then the antis have been getting weaker and less relevant. Very little has gone well for them since.

Funny thing -- although we hated it then, the Million Mom March was good for us in two ways. 1) It bolstered our side. 2) It allowed the marginal antis to spill their emotions in one big feel-good-fest that did nothing ... and then they moved onto other concerns, forgetting about guns.

That said, the worm could turn again.

RealGun
July 12, 2006, 10:33 AM
How about the specific authority of the 14th amendment that grants congress the right to pass laws to insure states do not violate our liberties?

That is the point, in that such a thing has never been done in regard to RKBA.

The 14th amendment says congress can enforce that right when a state might want to infringe that right.

You're right, and I am all for it, but it has never happened for the 2A. Keep in mind that DC is not a "State" and would not necessarily establish a precedent useful to the States.

v8fbird
July 12, 2006, 02:34 PM
"Currently, a new bill is being proposed that will prohibit police from confiscating firearms during emergencies, a response to such foolishness as was seen during Hurricane Katrina."

Why, out of curosity, do we need an ACT OF CONGRESS to say that the government can't take our guns? Does "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" mean something different in 2006?

It's like the nuts who want a Constitutional amendment to stop bestowing citizenship upon the children of illegal aliens. Apparently the words "AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF" weren't clear enough.

We don't need new laws when we were given some pretty good ones a long time ago.

Bartholomew Roberts
July 12, 2006, 03:01 PM
And yet, with a republican house, senate and white house, we still can not repeal the 89 import ban, the 86 MG ban, the sporting use language of the GCA, or anything else. The only way AWB vanished is because of the sunset. This is pitiful.

What is pitiful is gun owners. The election year of 2000 represented the most total contibutions from pro-RKBA groups since before 1990 (and possibly ever) (http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=Q13).

During that year, the 4.2 million gunowners of the NRA, the 300,000 gunowners of the GOA, the 100,000 gunowners of SAF, and the 40-80 million other gunowners out there, donated a total of just less than $4 million. Or to put that another way, every NRA member chipped in a little less than a dollar and everyone else said they would catch the next check.

In 2002, all the pro-RKBA groups combined kicked in $2.7 million. In 2004, with John Kerry (about the most solid anti-gun vote Dems have run in 40 years or more) running for President and six anti-gun seats up for grabs in the Senate, all the pro-RKBA groups combined gave $1.3 million.

Of the top 100 all-time donors (1989-2006), only the NRA makes the list for pro-RKBA groups (at #27) (http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.asp?order=A). Of the top ten all-time donors, 8 of them give between 70-89% of their money to the Democratic party. The other two split it equally.

Frankly, every time I look at what the NRA has been able to do with 3-4 million members and $2 million/year, I am amazed that we are in as good of a position as we are. George Soros makes some big donations that don't count as "anti-Second Amendment"; but you can bet twice that donation it has that effect. The other thought I have every time I look at those numbers is to wonder what would happen if even 5% of American gunowners decided to stop sitting on the sidelines and join in...

v8fbird
July 12, 2006, 03:14 PM
Correct me if I am wrong, but it would appear that the amounts you are listing are just the amounts donated to political candidates through PACs, etc.

Which does not show a failure of gun owners to give, but the success of BCRA and other campaign finance reform to keep donations low, incumbents in office and keep challengers and third parties from raising money, being heard and winning elections.


The NRA doesn't do ANYTHING for under $2 million.

Sean85746
July 12, 2006, 03:22 PM
The dominos started to tip DURING the Clinton administration. Grassroots organizatioons, and free thinking politicos bucked the system, and won us some small victories.

I am an Arizonan, where open carry has always been legal. We have had CCW's for years now. I can't imagine living in a non gun state again. I lived in MI while in High School, and was shocked to know that you were in deep doo doo if you carried a gun.

Even Michigan, a state where open carry is SUPPOSEDLY legal, and CCW's were nigh onto impossible to get unless you were wealthy or connected, an SHALL ISSUE CCW law is on the books and working.

The vast majority of states have SHALL ISSUE CCW permits, and congress is watching.

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun Control is out in DC..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!