So what's most likely to be banned / regulated?


PDA






mattc58
November 7, 2012, 10:01 AM
So...given how things went last night. I think many of us are more afraid of unconstitutional executive orders, ATF regulations, etc. than legislative action.

So which items are most likely to be targets of regulations and executive orders? I would think:

"Assault Rifles"
High Capacity Assault Weapon Magazines
High Capacity Pistol Magazines


It does seem like the prudent person a) will move to buy a few of these items if he thinks they will be banned, b) has already done this. Sadly I'm in the former category.

If you enjoyed reading about "So what's most likely to be banned / regulated?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
pockets
November 7, 2012, 10:03 AM
(D) None of the above

.

grilledcheese
November 7, 2012, 10:05 AM
Agreed. None of the above. There's no traction whatsoever in congress for any gun control legislation.



Jeffrey

radiotom
November 7, 2012, 10:07 AM
It's like you people didn't even read the first line of his post.

BSA1
November 7, 2012, 10:11 AM
"When I look back on all these worries, I remember the story of the old man who said on his deathbed that he had had a lot of trouble in his life, most of which had never happened”

Winston Churchill

scythefwd
November 7, 2012, 10:15 AM
radio.. an unconstitutional EO will be knocked down pretty quick.. too many people watching him to let one go. That is at least until he gets another appointment.

MIL-DOT
November 7, 2012, 10:21 AM
I think it is supremely naive to think that O and Holder are going to sit on their hands for the next four years, and leave things as they are.
The next time someone goes berserk and shoots up the place, the anti's will see this as their big opportuntity to capitalize on their momentum ( and time advantage), then the media will blast it from the mountaintops, keeping it in the forefront as though no other news existed.The administration will "have" to respond to the "public outrage" and "will of the people", and do something.
As the OP pointed out, he/they can do considerable damage with mere EO's, they don't need any "legislative action".
edit: just halting the import of foreign guns,ammo and magazines is easily within his ability, and wouldn't resuslt in any successful constitutional challenges.

HOOfan_1
November 7, 2012, 10:23 AM
hope for the best, prepare for the worst

huntsman
November 7, 2012, 10:23 AM
(E) everything but sticks and rocks

;)

22-rimfire
November 7, 2012, 10:26 AM
I see change coming. No idea if there will be any legislative changes that impact the current status quo in terms of firearms. But I suspect we will see an ammo tax. What changed last night? HOPE

comus3
November 7, 2012, 10:27 AM
Don't see any changes out of the administration. If they were going to do something why wait until the second term, they couldn't have thought anyone in the RKBA side was going to vote for them anyway.

Mp7
November 7, 2012, 10:28 AM
The right to not have to bear mormons seems guaranteed :-)


(sorry couldnt resist.)

grilledcheese
November 7, 2012, 10:28 AM
It's like you people didn't even read the first line of his post.

Oh, I read it. Extra-legislative action might be likely if there were repeated and hard-fought battles over gun control bills in congress, but that's not the current situation, nor has it been for some time. Trying something that unpopular would bring all manner of hellaciousness down upon the administration from a good number of congresscritters who are already on the warpath from previous incidents.



Jeffrey

HoosierQ
November 7, 2012, 10:32 AM
None. Gun control is not a radar scope item. I know that many don't agree but it's not. Or not a prominent one at any rate. I could of course be wrong and many will say I am. But my answer remains...none.

radiotom
November 7, 2012, 10:33 AM
I think it is supremely naive to think that O and Holder are going to sit on their hands for the next four years, and leave things as they are.
The next time someone goes berserk and shoots up the place, the anti's will see this as their big opportuntity to capitalize on their momentum ( and time advantage), then the media will blast it from the mountaintops, keeping it in the forefront as though no other news existed.The administration will "have" to respond to the "public outrage" and "will of the people", and do something.
As the OP pointed out, he/they can do considerable damage with mere EO's, they don't need any "legislative action".
edit: just halting the import of foreign guns,ammo and magazines is easily within his ability, and wouldn't resuslt in any successful constitutional challenges.
This.

His entire 1st term has been setting up his 2nd. Good luck to you all.

tomrkba
November 7, 2012, 10:33 AM
One problem are decisions like Heller. SCOTUS declared the 2A is not an unlimited right. They created the notion of "sensitive places". Other restrictions are possible.

ambidextrous1
November 7, 2012, 10:37 AM
I agree, ammunition is likely to be taxed, and limits on the amount a person can possess will also be imposed.

Look for a black market on reloaded ammunition, and corresponding efforts by the BATFE to suppress it.

It will become very imortant to know who your friends are...

CountryUgly
November 7, 2012, 10:38 AM
Just taking a shot in the dark here but I wouldn't be shocked to a see a Clinton era AWB and ammo taxed to the point no one can afford it. Not to mention a slew of mag capacity limits or things such as "special forms" for internet orders of ammo exceeding 1K rounds at a time. Will it happen or will it not I don't know but I would not be shocked.

tomrkba
November 7, 2012, 10:40 AM
If they tax ammo out of existence, they'll get the ammunition back sans primer, case and powder.

I fully expect to see states resisting that law. Remember, ALL of this is based upon the corrupted Commerce Clause. If everything is kept within the state, the Feds should not have jurisidiction. This has not stopped them in the past, so I think it really does come down to whether or not the states are willing to do violence against Federal law enforcement.

I say the above not to encourage anyone to action, but as an actual political reality.

wlewisiii
November 7, 2012, 10:42 AM
Nothing.

Despite the NRA lies, the Democratic party learned it's lesson in 1994.

brnmw
November 7, 2012, 10:45 AM
hope for the best, prepare for the worst

This has always been my motto, however I would like to think the liberals will not be able to pass any lasting bans/laws on us in the next four years, however it is not likely that they will be okay with the current status quo. they will fight for more regulation for this I am certain, just how much will they get away with "No one really knows". :uhoh:

oneounceload
November 7, 2012, 10:48 AM
They don't have to ban anything, just tax it to the point it becomes an expensive paperweight

MtnCreek
November 7, 2012, 10:50 AM
IMHO, the threat is not in legislation or executive orders. We lost our chance to replace Ginsburg and we should also keep in mind that Thomas has a heart condition. Our 5:4 (really a 4.5:4.5) will likely be a 4:5 four years from now.

Just One Shot
November 7, 2012, 11:02 AM
So many with their head still in the sand. The threat to our 2nd amendment may not be an immediate one but it is coming. O will be replacing 2-3 Supreme Court judges in his next term. Many of the decisions for our gun rights have come down to just one vote for our rights. After this term the antis will be able to push legislation before a panel of judges that can change the national landscape from one with the right to keep and bear arms to one that can't.

JustinJ
November 7, 2012, 11:04 AM
What cases specifically are expected to be brought before the supreme court?

Sheepdog1968
November 7, 2012, 11:10 AM
Mixed control in Congress and a broader support of firearms than 1994. I don't expect anything. I also made a decision years ago to get what I really wanted/needed plus magazines so that if things were ever banned (assuming you were grandfathered to own) I didin't need to worry about it.

fatcat4620
November 7, 2012, 11:11 AM
Those cheap handguns used in chicago?

hso
November 7, 2012, 11:15 AM
Anyone knowledgeable on the topic knows that legislation is required to actually enact a ban so nothing is going to be banned.

With the SCOTUS decisions on DC and Chicago an Executive Order will be challenged and defeated unless it involves very subtle changes that will have negligible results for the general population of shooters.

Greg528iT
November 7, 2012, 11:18 AM
NOTHING!

Why do people expect the 1st term is just setting up the 2nd term. If doing something / anything is your primary agenda, you do it 1st thing. There was NO guaranty a 2nd term was coming. He signed and opened up being able to bring firearms onto national lands. If he was so anti gun, he'd have vetoed it, just to get himself started.

ofitg
November 7, 2012, 11:20 AM
Since nobody else has mentioned it, that United Nations gun control treaty may be coming back in March 2013 -

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/joseph-klein/act-2-for-the-united-nations-arms-trade-treaty/

According to what I have read, the treaty goes into effect immediately upon being signed by the President. The Senate has the option of striking it down..... but Harry Reid might not allow it to be voted on.

JustinJ
November 7, 2012, 11:20 AM
My only concern, and it is not a major one, is changes to what types of firearms are imported. A while back there was a report questioning the validity of the Saiga 12 and other shotguns as being for "Sporting Purposes". I don't know if possibly reinterpretation could also affect other Saigas but the use of which they can accept high capacity magazines could make them a prime target. However, i was concerned about this before the election so nothing new.

TrueTexan
November 7, 2012, 11:33 AM
No change, he has bigger problems and is not going to create more issues.

scaatylobo
November 7, 2012, 11:39 AM
"So...given how things went last night. I think many of us are more afraid of unconstitutional executive orders, ATF regulations, etc. than legislative action."




I read and FULLY understand the OP's meaning.

That is the part that scares me,that the "dead horse" in the white house will come out with orders that are NOT constitutional.

hammerklavier
November 7, 2012, 11:39 AM
Amazing, the number of people who ignore the fact Obama 'came out' for an AWB and handgun ban in the second debate.

Skribs
November 7, 2012, 11:41 AM
I also made a decision years ago to get what I really wanted/needed plus magazines so that if things were ever banned (assuming you were grandfathered to own) I didin't need to worry about it.

That's a great idea for people who have had the time and means to get everything they wanted/owned. People like me, who are still building their collection...

radiotom
November 7, 2012, 11:42 AM
No change, he has bigger problems and is not going to create more issues.
All this man has done is create problems and issues.

jimmyraythomason
November 7, 2012, 11:46 AM
The threat to our 2nd amendment may not be an immediate one but it is coming.Absolutely! Don't be lulled into a false security because of past wins in the SCOTUS or a lack of bills previously introduced. A second term is a whole new ballgame.

Elessar
November 7, 2012, 11:49 AM
You guys that seem to think there is no way legislation will come about are betting everything on an increasingly slim assumption. Plus, once he gets one or two appointees to SCOTUS, there will be a new 2nd Amend case brought, specifically to void the individual right from the law. Then there is the UN treaty thing. Then there is the option of simply "decreeing" things bad, or polluting, etc etc thru one of the regulatory agencies. Literally anything is possible at this point.

They will go after the 2nd Amendment. It is a necessary step in the plan they have been following for decades. They have also said outright they plan to, both from the white house and the official democrat platform.

Onward Allusion
November 7, 2012, 11:52 AM
Absolutely NOTHING is going to happen for at least 12 to 18 months.

The administration has way too much on their hands with the economy. If everyone doesn't pitch in to avoid the upcoming cliff, gun control will be the least of our worries. Can all y'all imagine 25% unemployment? No, not the real - current unemployment rate with a reported rate of 7.9%, but a 25% that is reported to the public. That would equate to a real unemployment rate of around 30% to 40%.

Fix the economy, get 'em fat & happy, then turn the screws but by then no one will care because they've done such a good job turning everything around. Yeah, I am a cynic.

MtnCreek
November 7, 2012, 11:52 AM
What cases specifically are expected to be brought before the supreme court?

None that I’m aware of. Are you saying that you believe the battle over the 2A is over? If a couple more justices were appointed by Democrats, do you believe the outcomes of the recent cases would have been the same? Hell, we have a hard enough time getting a president with an R by his name to appoint a pro 2A justice… If you think challenges to the 2A are over and our side won, then I guess it doesn’t matter. BUT, keep in mind one side believes the Constitution should be interrupted in the context of current times; times in which the 2A is outdated and no longer applicable...

medalguy
November 7, 2012, 11:52 AM
an unconstitutional EO will be knocked down pretty quick

Can you name an EO by this prez that has been knocked down at any time? At last count he had issued over 140 of them. In my book, that's a LOT of EOs.

I can easily see a ban of some kind on AWs, and taxes on everything, guns, ammo, powder, primers, bullets. All of it. It's already been tried in Chicago, never mind that nothing came of that one probably because there's virtually no guns legally sold in Chicago anyway.

And yes, the UN ban is always sitting out there in the wings. I never thought of Reid refusing to bring that up for a vote in the Senate. Scary.

X-Rap
November 7, 2012, 11:52 AM
If it doesn't happen now it will in the 3rd term.

HOOfan_1
November 7, 2012, 12:14 PM
The administration has way too much on their hands with the economy.

I think that is what people said when they pushed through Obamacare.

I am not going to panic and assume gun control is going to get stricter.

I sure as heck am not going to stick my fingers in my ears and ignore the fact that stricter gun control might happen.

RBid
November 7, 2012, 12:24 PM
I'm worried about SCOTUS appointments. That's it.

I think it is a very common miss to assume that Dem Senators would support an AWB or similar legislation. My State has two Dem Senators. My State (Oregon) also has an FBI estimated 39% rate of gun ownership, which is dramatically above the national average. Our Senators would be committing career suicide by supporting bans, and they know it. Washington State is similar, etc. For all the "liberal" blaming, you won't see many Dem Senators lined up to support a ban.

1911 guy
November 7, 2012, 12:26 PM
First thing to go is going to be this thread. Not because the conversation is being unreasonable or unrealistic, but because there's been a trend of squashing speculation about what The Big O is going to cram down our throats this four years. I do not know what items will be first, nor do I know how soon, but they will be restricted, banned or confiscated (the last is unlikely) one of two ways. First will be Executive Order. He's already stated openly that he views this as an end0run around congress and the will of the people. Secondly will be legislation that must be "passed so we can see what's in it". Anyone remember that ploy? Then they can deny they knew of the litany of provisions restricting Second Amendment rights. The Second will be only one of many under attack, though.

mljdeckard
November 7, 2012, 12:28 PM
The entire manual of BATFE could be re-written. I'm thinking they will redefine 'sporting use' and set guidelines as yet vague which will be all too clear for things like what defines 'dealer'.

JohnBT
November 7, 2012, 12:36 PM
"The administration will "have" to respond to the "public outrage"

How will the president push it through Congress? He won't be able to. Remember, the president cannot run in the next election, but the members of Congress want to be re-elected. Job number one is keeping your seat.


"I am not going to panic"

The last time I did that was during the years leading up to the passage of the GCA of 1968.

John

22-rimfire
November 7, 2012, 12:46 PM
I am more concerned about regulations and taxes than I am about some sort of magazine restriction, "assault weapon" restrictions, eliminating the "gunshow loophole", and so forth. The EPA has broad authority to save us from ourselves.

I see taxing authority to be the biggest short term issue. The Chicago tax is a good example of how it will be sold to the public. You say it won't stand up to judicial scrutiny? That takes years and in the mean time, things move forward. People adjust, but none of the changes will be viewed as sufficient to incite social rebellion.

Yes, you need to be concerned about the UN small arms treaty as it only requires Presidential and Senate approval. Increasing the power and authority of the UN fits right in with my impression of the views of the current administration. It doesn't matter what the US people think in the short term.

So we move forward... to what end, I don't know.

morcey2
November 7, 2012, 12:50 PM
$0.25 per primer tax. To the unknowing, it sounds reasonable. Adds $5 to a standard box of rifle ammo, not a big deal. Adds $12.50 to a box of pistol ammo. Not so reasonable. Makes reloading almost useless.

Also, banning handguns via the health care act as a matter of public health. Wouldn't require any legislation and many legal minds have said that because the way that the law is written makes it not subject to Federal judicial review.

Matt

JustinJ
November 7, 2012, 12:51 PM
None that I’m aware of. Are you saying that you believe the battle over the 2A is over?

No, all i've done is ask a question. However, for further gun restrictions to occur new laws must be passed by congress and the pres, which is extremely unlikely. Yes, an unfavorable supreme court make-up could certainly make it much harder to reverse existing regulations but the supreme court can not impose new laws.

Not to mention that 2nd amendment related cases heard by the supreme court are not exactly common and generally have had long periods of time between.

If a couple more justices were appointed by Democrats, do you believe the outcomes of the recent cases would have been the same?

They probably would have waited until a more favorable makeup existed to bring them to court.

BUT, keep in mind one side believes the Constitution should be interrupted in the context of current times; times in which the 2A is outdated and no longer applicable...

Hardly. I'm afraid there are two sides which believe in selective interpretation of the constitution.

hso
November 7, 2012, 01:00 PM
This one has started to be hijacked so we'll shut it down.

If you enjoyed reading about "So what's most likely to be banned / regulated?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!