Gun ban question


PDA






CSestp
November 20, 2008, 03:30 PM
This is all under the gumption if Obama put a gun ban in effect the day he goes into office Jan. 20th 2009.

If I pay for a firearm today, but because of demand he cannot get it to me untill June of next year (5 months after gun ban is put in place). Would I still be able to get my firearm, or would it be illegal?

I guess the real question should be this: Do you have to have firearm in hand before the/a gun ban takes place in order for it to be grandfathered in, or can you have paid for your firearm and be on a back order waiting list and still get your firearm?

I know how vague this question is, so it is totally open to opinion.

If you enjoyed reading about "Gun ban question" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
7.62Reaper
November 20, 2008, 03:40 PM
In hand would make the most sense to me- Likely they would cancel and refund all orders after any type of ban.

There will be NO BAN. I promise.

ArmedBear
November 20, 2008, 03:51 PM
Obama can't ban guns.

He could sign a ban that's passed by Congress. It would then be taken straight to court.

I'm not saying that I'm not stocking up on a few things, just that you should be fine on your order.

CSestp
November 20, 2008, 03:53 PM
I hope that there isn't, but boyscouts always prepaired me with; "Prepair for the worst, hope for the best." and "Always be prepaired."

ArmedBear
November 20, 2008, 03:54 PM
What's a prepair?

Is that like when my puppy had little tiny bumps between his hind legs, before he grew up and they became a real pair?

Sinixstar
November 20, 2008, 04:30 PM
Technically - you haven't actually bought it until the transaction is complete (merchandise has been sent for delivery).
In fact, most creditcards are very picky about when a customer can actually be charged for products that are ordered via mail or electronically. You're not allowed to charge someone's account (you can request an authorization, but that's different) until the items are shipped. ('shipped' in most cases means boxed up and ready to go out, just waiting on the fedex/ups guy).
The way companies get around this - is by taking a deposit. You're not paying for an item, you're putting a deposit down to pay for work to manufacture/produce the item. In that case - you haven't actually bought anything yet - so technically you do not own anything. It's just a deposit - so the order could be killed, and the money refunded.

CSestp
November 20, 2008, 06:09 PM
ArmedBear wat is a trol theet don't contribue nuten to a tread? You is. What is someone that sucks at spelling? Me. Honestly can't you find something better to do than to be my gram. teacher? Your welcome for the 4.6 seconds of enjoyment you got, and the chance to make a bad joke.

Thank you everyone else for your input, nd 4 lok'n pest me baad spell'n.

I'm a ****, saw your post ArmedBear. Still I think the above is funny so it stays, and a prepair is a new fruit I have been working on in my bassment.

Yo Mama
November 20, 2008, 06:18 PM
I don't get comments that Obama won't sign it, he will. It's not a debate, it'll happen as soon as he gets it on his desk.

I've said before this is no different than if it was Bush or McCain.

Read another thread here on Michael Steele, who is running for GOP chair.

On both sides it's coming, should have voted Libertarian.

tblt
November 20, 2008, 06:20 PM
I'm going to a gun show in 2 weeks and buying a few guns that I have been wanting for carry

Sinixstar
November 20, 2008, 06:20 PM
Bear in mind that Obama will not ban your guns. Congress will ban your guns, Obama just signs the law.
Some people don't see the distinction - but it is huge. Complaining to the office of the president will do you very little good.

It's also worth noting that we WILL have a good deal of warning before this happens. Congress moves painfully slow on all but emergency measures (and even then they're prone to infighting and long debates) - and something as controversial as this WILL come down to a drawn out fight on the floor of the house and the senate. This idea that somehow a new administration is going to come into office and have an AWB on his desk first thing is - silly at best. I mean, it took the Brady Campaign almost 10 years of lobbying efforts to get the Brady Bill passed. The '94 AWB would not have been possible without those efforts. Even then, the '94 ban took almost a year to move through both houses of congress. It was first introduced in October of '03 - and wasn't signed into law until Sept of '94.

Jefferson Herb
November 20, 2008, 06:25 PM
Our enonomy is in turmoil,banks broke,houses lost,and along comes someone who says all the right words.I'm too young to have been there ,but isnt that what was going on when Hitler was elected to power? I hope we're not in for the same kind of ordeal.

Sinixstar
November 20, 2008, 06:29 PM
Our enonomy is in turmoil,banks broke,houses lost,and along comes someone who says all the right words.I'm too young to have been there ,but isnt that what was going on when Hitler was elected to power? I hope we're not in for the same kind of ordeal.

The Hitler comparisons are tired and lame. What was going on in Germany at the time was a good deal more complicated than what's going on here in the US now. Hitler didn't just come along with some fancy words and speeches...

mljdeckard
November 20, 2008, 06:38 PM
America doesn't trust Obama like Germany trusted Hitler. We're not even CLOSE to there.

No one can say what a ban will entail when it doesn't even exist yet. If you've always wanted to have it, get it. Don't imagine you are dodging pieces of falling sky.

Lone_Gunman
November 20, 2008, 06:39 PM
The idea that the Democrats are no longer interested in gun control is ludicrous and naive.

You can count on the gunshow loophole being closed this term.

You can count on the end of private sales this term.

You can count on a new permanent AWB either this term or next term.

Who do you think is going to stand up in Congress for your gun rights?

mljdeckard
November 20, 2008, 06:52 PM
Jim Matheson Jr. (D, Utah)
Rob Bishop (R, Utah)
Jason Chaffetz (R, Utah)
Bob Bennet (R, Utah)
Orrin Hatch (R, Utah)

THAT's who.

I count on none of these things. They possible, but unlikely. The dems have a very narrow window with the current setup. voting on any gun ban would be controversial and divisive. NOT ALL DEMS SUPPORT GUN CONTROL. They will use their political capital on other things.

Lone_Gunman
November 20, 2008, 07:02 PM
Wow... you named five. That's great.

I am not sure how many Congressmen there are. Is five a majority now?

Sinixstar
November 20, 2008, 07:17 PM
I count on none of these things. They possible, but unlikely. The dems have a very narrow window with the current setup. voting on any gun ban would be controversial and divisive. NOT ALL DEMS SUPPORT GUN CONTROL. They will use their political capital on other things.

I've said this so many times, i'm sure people are sick of hearing it.
Even with the dem majority from '92-'94, dems alone would not have passed ANY anti-gun legislation without the help of Republicans.
That aside, the social-political climate in the united states was far different in the early 90s then it is now. Simply take for example entertainment. The early 90s saw groups like NWA singing "F--- the police", Ice Cube talkin about his AK, Dr Dre talkin about his Tech-9 - and these were chart topping artists. Movies like Menace 2 Society and Boyz in the Hood were blockbusters, and the image of the urban gang-banger with fully automatic weapons was burned into everybody's mind.
All of that was used to create a bit of fear and build support for weapons bans and restrictions in '93 and '94. Even then it was an uphill battle, dems couldn't have done it without republicans, and even under those favorable conditions - it cost them the majorities they needed to get it done in the first place.

Jump forward to today - and NONE of those cultural factors are at play these days. Places like Newark, The South Bronx, Gary, even to some degree LA and the South Side of Chicago have been cleaned up a bit. This specter of gang bangers bustin into somebody's house in Iowa just isn't the fear it used to be - and support for weapons bans is considerably lower then it was 15 years ago.
You add all this up, and it really doesn't look good for the anti-movement. Will they try? Sure they will. They might even get a few concessions here and there. I seriously doubt it will be anything substantial.

What I think the most likely scenario is - is that the democrats will allow anti-gun legislation to come up for debate, get voted on, and sandbag it so it goes nowhere. Gives them the cover to say they tried, gives Obama the cover with the anti movement to say "i would have signed it if it came to my desk, but it didn't" to the anti-crowd, raises huge amounts of money for everybody, both sides keep the wedge issue that they like to beat eachother over the head with, and dems who might be at risk if they vote for it don't have to be put in that position.
Pretty much everybody wins all the way around.

The only thing that could foul that up - is if enough republicans break and make up the ground lost by those pro-gun dems who vote against it. I find that however hard to believe, as they know they'll be out on their rears in 2010 or 2012 just as fast as anybody else.


I am not sure how many Congressmen there are. Is five a majority now?


Off the top of my head, i think it's 438 or 435? I'm going with 435 on this one, as i'm almost certain it's an odd number....

mljdeckard
November 20, 2008, 07:21 PM
It's a full sweep from my state. You want to clean up yours?

Frank Ettin
November 20, 2008, 07:30 PM
CSestp,

There's really no way to answer your question, or similar questions about what would happen if....

First, if some form of gun ban is enacted and signed (and it will almost certainly be signed if enacted), what will happen to guns already owned or in the process of being acquired or on order, etc., will depend on the exact language of the law. And we can't know that until it's been enacted.

MGshaggy
November 20, 2008, 08:05 PM
Jump forward to today - and NONE of those cultural factors are at play these days. Places like Newark, The South Bronx, Gary, even to some degree LA and the South Side of Chicago have been cleaned up a bit. This specter of gang bangers bustin into somebody's house in Iowa just isn't the fear it used to be - and support for weapons bans is considerably lower then it was 15 years ago.

Careful - that pendulum could easily begin its swing back. Crime and economic downturns have a tendency to go together quite well, and we are on the edge of a seriously worsening economy. But it'll all be ok - I'm sure the economy will be just peachy once the glorious leader takes office.;)

Sinixstar
November 20, 2008, 09:01 PM
Careful - that pendulum could easily begin its swing back. Crime and economic downturns have a tendency to go together quite well, and we are on the edge of a seriously worsening economy. But it'll all be ok - I'm sure the economy will be just peachy once the glorious leader takes office.


Understood entirely I've actually been trying to make the case that there are MANY contributing factors to crime rates to some of the people on this site. Sort of lends it's self to the argument about the early 90s though. We were in as bad if not worse shape economically there for awhile AND had all the cultural stuff going on - then we have now.

In the grand scheme of things - I think if crime rates did go up as a result of economic pressures, that would lend some weight to our argument that an increase in crime is not directly caused by availability (or lack thereof) of guns. If you show that guns are not the cause of crime directly, then by simple logic - it defeats the argument that banning guns will somehow decrease crime...

shooter429
November 20, 2008, 09:07 PM
Oh, no. You voted for Osama, didn't you. Shame. there goes our country. I just don't see how anybody with a conscience could vote for a liberal democrat. Communism and fascism are bad. switch to the freedom party.

Shooter429

Sinixstar
November 20, 2008, 09:17 PM
Oh, no. You voted for Osama, didn't you. Shame. there goes our country. I just don't see how anybody with a conscience could vote for a liberal democrat. Communism and fascism are bad. switch to the freedom party.


Make sure your tin-foil hat is on tight. Otherwise the spooks can track you over the interwebs.

Lone_Gunman
November 20, 2008, 09:35 PM
Did the people who don't think there will be a new gun ban vote for the Democrats and Obama?

wyocarp
November 20, 2008, 10:20 PM
America doesn't trust Obama like Germany trusted Hitler. We're not even CLOSE to there.

A lot of people must have put a lot of trust in him or there would be no way that a black man with a terrorist sounding name and almost no experience would be elected as the president of the United States.

Sinixstar
November 20, 2008, 10:37 PM
A lot of people must have put a lot of trust in him or there would be no way that a black man with a terrorist sounding name and almost no experience would be elected as the president of the United States.

Nevermind that Hitler wasn't really elected - he was appointed Chancellor, convinced Hindenburg to dissolve the Reichstag, and just before there were supposed to be elections - look at this, a fire at the Reichstag building! In the name of national security, political opponents were rounded up, arrested, deported, shot, and banned from being involved in any government affairs.
What Hitler did to finally gain power was essentially a long drawn out militant coup. Far from any semblance of an election. By the time there was any election of hitler (i don't recall off hand if there was or not) there were no political opponents that would dare rise up against Hitler or the Nazis.
Although, Ironically enough - the only group to stand up to Hitler and the Enabling act (which lead the way for his takeover later on) was the "Social Democrats" of the Reichstag.


President Paul von Hindenburg died on 2 August 1934. Rather than holding new presidential elections, Hitler's cabinet passed a law proclaiming the presidency dormant and transferred the role and powers of the head of state to Hitler as Führer und Reichskanzler (leader and chancellor). Thereby Hitler also became supreme commander of the military, whose officers then swore an oath not to the state or the constitution but to Hitler personally.


Anybody who makes a comparison of Obama to Hitler - in my opinion, should go back and retake High School World History class. When people make statements like that - I cannot take them seriously.

goon
November 20, 2008, 11:21 PM
The idea that the Democrats are no longer interested in gun control is ludicrous and naive.

You can count on the gunshow loophole being closed this term.

You can count on the end of private sales this term.

You can count on a new permanent AWB either this term or next term.

Who do you think is going to stand up in Congress for your gun rights?


OK then: What are you planning to do about it?
My strategy is to join the democratic party and make them less "bad".
Then you win either way.
You want to vote R? Fine, go ahead. They'll still be what they are without you voting in their primary and you can still vote for the republican guy in the "real" election anyway. No real harm done.
But if you could get enough people to join the other party and pull them back to center you'd still wind up with an acceptable guy in office regardless of who won.

Oh, no. You voted for Osama, didn't you. Shame. there goes our country. I just don't see how anybody with a conscience could vote for a liberal democrat. Communism and fascism are bad. switch to the freedom party.


That's part of our problem.
I don't know you but I'll make the assumption for the purpose of this discussion that you're probably a somewhat reasonable person. I could probably talk guns and poltitics with you over a beer.
When you exclusively support a "little" party, the big parties don't hear your (reasonable, gun loving)voice. Right now the fact is that one of them will win (although the Republicans seem to be doing a damn fine job of making themselves into a little party). I understand the reasons for voting for a third party if that's what your conscience dictates and I've even done it myself. I'll probably do it again.
But at the least, why not choose the party that sucks the most and use the ballot box to try to make their candidates more tolerable via primary elections?
Even put a little pressure on them with the ol' "I'm a registered democrat and I don't want anymore gun laws" type of letter?
Realistically, what do we stand to lose?

IMTHDUKE
November 20, 2008, 11:28 PM
Realistically, what do we stand to lose?

Uh....lets see.....America?

Welcome to the Obamanation....USSA

I see what confidence the stock market has in our upcoming messiah leader.....in the tank and only 7995 points to go.

Jeff White
November 20, 2008, 11:30 PM
This thread is just stupid, uninformed speculation with a healthy dose of politics....

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