Let's discuss the REALITY of where we are at on the 2A and Gun Control


PDA






leadcounsel
December 23, 2012, 04:12 PM
So, as I see it, there's many angles and options. Chime in on the liklihood:

This can happen either through new laws or Executive Order.

New laws require majority votes in Senate and House, and then signature by the President. Senate is majority Democrate and House is Majority Republican. Anti-gun laws will likely be along party lines, with a few swing voters. President will happily sign into law ANY gun laws before him.

a. High Cap mag bans past/current/future. I think this is likely, banning FUTURE manufacture and import and possibly sale. Overall, I still think this fails in at least the House, for now.

b. Private transfers. The 'loophole' will almost certainly be on the table for guns, and possibly mags and ammo. We may go the way of Illinois needing a special card to buy ammo. Online sales may go away. All could require a special background check to buy or sell/transfer. I think this will become law, at least for guns.

c. Deeper mental health ownership restrictions. Possibly for anyone that has sought mental health treatment, including PTSD and TBI. I Possibly a total ban for you or anyone in your household, much like felony restrictions. think this will happen.

d. Gun/ammo import restrictions. Expect a total ban, probably not through law, but through EO.

e. Special Weapon registry. I expect either through law or EO, the ATF will tighten down on our beloved AR15 and AK type weapons. There could certainly be a registry. (We all know that will lead to confiscation one day.). Other than the NDA from a few years ago, I'm not aware of any prohibition, and the "well regulated" language of the 2A doesn't help argue against it. DC v. Heller protects handguns but didn't go quite far enough to protect these weapons, unfortunately.

So, for now, I think we'll see some encroachments. Hopefully not too terrible, but terrible just the same. As a result, I think prices will be a solid 50% higher for anything on the ban list or ammo and mags than they were in November 2012 probably until after at least the next Congressional elections, and then possibly longer depending on the outcome.

Your thoughts?

If you enjoyed reading about "Let's discuss the REALITY of where we are at on the 2A and Gun Control" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
gc70
December 23, 2012, 04:24 PM
e. Special Weapon registry

What existing law provides the authority for an Executive Order to achieve such an end?

avs11054
December 23, 2012, 04:56 PM
I am hopeful and confident that none of these will pass. You must also note that while the republicans are the minority in the senate, democrats still do not have the 60+ votes needed in the senate to stop a fillibuster. High profile senators such as Lindsey Graham have already said he will not support another ban.

Like you said, any vote on this will probably be along party lines with a few members of each side crossing over. I don't see any gun control legislation passing either chamber.

That being said, if something does happen, I see the most likely legislation being a ban on hi-cap mags and/or the gunshow "loophole."

45_auto
December 23, 2012, 05:11 PM
The ATF can rule that a weapon is "readily convertible" to automatic operation and it instantly becomes a machinegun. As a general rule, ANY semi-auto is readily convertible to automatic operation. All it takes is a string (or lever if you don't mind a little machining) to trip the sear or trigger when the bolt closes.

That's how they took the open-bolt semi-autos off the market in 1982.

The National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b), defines a machinegun to include any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.

The “shoots automatically” definition covers weapons that will function automatically. The “readily restorable” definition defines weapons which previously could shoot automatically but will not in their present condition. The “designed” definition includes those weapons which have not previously functioned as machineguns but possess design features which facilitate full automatic fire by a simple modification or elimination of existing component parts.

http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-82-8.pdf

There was an ATF ruling in 2006 that ruled that any firearm with a string used to increase the cyclic rate is a machinegun. I don't know of any semiauto that would be difficult to rig a string between the bolt and trigger. An AR15 would be one of the most difficult since it doesn't have a charging handle that rides with the bolt, and even then all you would need to do is stick a pin out the side of the bolt carrier.

http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/savage2.htm

bikemutt
December 23, 2012, 05:23 PM
I've noticed lately the gun show "loophole" is slowly being morphed into what it really is which is private sales of firearms period.

I predict this will be a relatively easy one to get passed. All they need to do is resurrect some of the NBC/CBS/ABC or whomever's footage showing people selling guns to buyers who say things like "I probably couldn't have passed a background check anyway".

The sellers responses when accosted by the journalists: "I need the money", "I don't care", "it's not illegal" etc.

Not saying I agree with BG checks for private sales, but when there are clear examples out there of sellers exercising very poor judgement, it's going to be pretty hard to drum up any sympathy from those without some skin in the game.

mljdeckard
December 23, 2012, 05:32 PM
I still don't now how eager Obama is to push this stuff through. I know he wants to LOOK like he is. He is getting heat from his base for mostly shtting up about it during the first termI really think that his sending Biden to head a commission on this is his way of pushing it down to the road, so that he can bring it up later, push a bill that won't make it out of committee, and say; "Look, I tried. The republicans stopped me again." I really think he wants to avoid the issue because it will eat up so much political capital, it will leave him with none left to do anything else. Right now he REALLY wants to get a budget deal done. That won't happen if he has already walked all over everyone and used all his favors and leverage on gun control that will confirm everyone's fears and hurt him badly in the mid-terms.

beatledog7
December 23, 2012, 05:49 PM
^^I tend to agree there won't be sweeping changes, but for different reasons.

Obama knows he has no mandate for anything, let alone far-reaching gun control, and that as he only "good feelings" to work from. A fair number of Obama voters I know simply voted Democrat or against Romney and are now waiting for Obama to straighten up and fly right. They won't tolerate a lot of fluffy, feel good, BS and are looking to him to govern for a change. I don't think they'll see trashing 2A as good governance.

guyfromohio
December 23, 2012, 05:53 PM
Mental health is a slippery slope. Banning vets with ptsd is a bad thing.

Geneseo1911
December 23, 2012, 07:08 PM
I see one of two scenarios:
-They focus on magazines, and our chances are about 50/50
-They let DiFi go for the full enchilada and get smacked down, and nothing happens.

Either way, I look for anything imported to be gone, Saiga-12's, maybe all auto shotguns that take more than 3 rounds, to become DD's, and anything else they can think of to do by EO. My gut feeling is that legislation fails and Obama does whatever he can unilaterally. That is almost certainly the best thing for him politically, as well as for the D. party, which we all know is what really drives decisions in Washington.

comus3
December 23, 2012, 07:41 PM
Mental health is a slippery slope. Banning vets with ptsd is a bad thing.
Unless it saves that vet's life

highlander 5
December 23, 2012, 07:43 PM
The Feds can't handle the requests from gun shops on background checks,now add in the requests from private sales and the system will come to a screeching halt. Viola,no gun sales at all. And IIRC the NICS check was for dealers exclusively

mljdeckard
December 23, 2012, 08:21 PM
The law gives a time limit for the checks. If they can't handle it, it goes through. If they change the law to say that all transfers have to go through an FFL, it just means that a lot more dealers will become FFLs.

Here's the thing, and I might get jeers for saying it, but I will anyway. It's not the background check for every transfer I couldn't live with. If it were me, I would become an FFL and do transfers either for free or very little to make it easier for people to do it. I don't have a problem with every transaction being CHECKED. What I have a problem with is the possibility (likelihood) that it will eventually become a way to track guns and owners. It's not the check system, it's the eventual long-term consequences.

Geneseo1911
December 23, 2012, 08:35 PM
This is starting to drift, but WHY THE HECK IS NICS RESTRICTED TO DEALERS?! I think most gun owners would make a call voluntarily if it was possible. Remove the 4473, and you remove any complaint I have about BG checks on private sales.

bikemutt
December 23, 2012, 08:52 PM
Here in WA, dealers are tax collectors for the state; all FFLs must collect the sales tax and remit to the state. So, from a practical standpoint, if a private sale for a $500 gun is now subject to a background check conducted by a FFL dealer, that gun will now pick up a $30 transfer fee (estimate) and 9.5% sales tax; $577.50.

As far as non-FFLs accessing the NICS, I don't see that happening anytime soon. There is more to what the ATF expects from a dealer than simply making a phone call to the NICS. Being able to sniff out straw purchases and other suspicious activity comes to mind.

All that said, I'm not ready to draw the line on BG checks for private sales since the effect on me as a buyer is minimal and largely financial. As a seller, I would find it remarkable and surprising to learn that someone whom I "cleared" failed a BG check that would be upheld on appeal. But it could happen I suppose.

goon
December 23, 2012, 09:03 PM
I agree with requiring checks on all sales, or at least on allowing private citizens to run checks themselves during transfers.
I have seen shady deals go down at gunshows when a seller knowingly sold a gun to someone he wasn't supposed to. In the case I am thinking of, the guy seemed legit but was from another state and the guy with the table wasn't licensed. He noted that he shouldn't sell it to an out of state resident privately, then took the money and did it anyhow. Granted, the buyer in that case was likely not going to go off and harm someone - he was just a guy buying a rifle he really wanted.

But given bad judgement like that on the part of private sellers, and I'm sure that there are cases much worse than that, I agree that losing private sales may be inevitable, at least for semi-autos. And though this may draw fire, I'd be OK with that. I agree with background checks on every sale with destruction of the 4473's within a short period of time (again, echoing the fears of registration).

Another question on my mind - what will Heller vs. D.C. allow legislators to get away with in this case? Heller specifically notes the right to self defense and that people have the right to use weapons in common use to do that. With millions of AR-15's and probably something like 30 manufacturers, they are popular. They seem to fit the criteria, as do high capacity magazines (which are used with AR's, AK's, FAL's, M1A's, Glocks, Berettas, SIG's... well, you get the idea).

And while I may draw even more fire from some for this idea, I don't think I'd shed any tears about a licensing system that would allow us to carry concealed anywhere in the country and buy anything we want up to select fire belt-fed weapons. I'd get on board with that. But the problem with gun control is that it never comes out to a real negotiation where both sides give and both sides recieve. Instead, it's always a matter of us losing something... and in the end, no one ever gains anything.

guyfromohio
December 23, 2012, 09:08 PM
Nics on all transfers? Here wifey, take mine today..... Oops, illegal transfer. Son, I'd like to give this colt to you.... Oops, illegal transfer. An attack on 2A is an attack on freedom.

bigfatdave
December 23, 2012, 09:20 PM
Mental health is a slippery slope. Banning vets with ptsd is a bad thing.

Unless it saves that vet's life

"If it only saves ONE LIFE" is a tired old argument. It is incorrect in the first place and has been disproven too many times to count.

Someone intent on suicide will accomplish it with whatever tools are handy

You must think veterans are awfully stupid, comus3, to assume that if denied a FFL purchase of a firearm they will be unable to end their own lives.

bigfatdave
December 23, 2012, 09:21 PM
I think most gun owners would make a call voluntarily if it was possible.

I sure wouldn't

Hacker15E
December 23, 2012, 09:26 PM
I think that the NRA should stop the silly push for armed school security and instead go all in to reform/improve the NICS system.

- Improve the infrastructure of the system; better computers, better updates out of sources

- Improve access and open access to NICS to all citizens for use in private sales

- Figure out how to determine which types of mental illness diagnoses should go into NICS. Figure out how to add those various types of documented mental illnesses into the system, AND ensure there is a reliable process to get one's name OFF that list once a medical professional clears someone.

It isn't a "solution" by any stretch, but it is a needed improvement to the system and could be shown to the gun control crowd as something that could actually help.

Deer_Freak
December 23, 2012, 09:31 PM
Lot's of people commit suicide in jails and prisons. I am quite sure all the prisoners are banned from possessing firearms.

goon
December 23, 2012, 10:10 PM
I agree that the NRA is going to have to back a plan that does more than just stick armed guards in schools. Although I support the idea of an armed person, or several, being available to slow down or halt an attacker, I think the cost alone of such a plan will likely be prohibitive. I'd rather see reservists or National Guardsmen be able to fulfil some of their required yearly service guarding schools, allow teachers to carry concealed, allow volunteers in the community to undergo training and provide additional security, or all three.

But they do have a point with their pledge of assisting schools in beefing up security. Most schools are such soft targets that anyone with a big rock could gain unauthorized access. Someone needs to get real and make it plain that a huge glass door is not secure no matter how you lock it, and that a receptionist with a clipboard or an unarmed security guard isn't going to accomplish anything other than being the first victim.

While it's true that criminals commit crimes without guns and that people with mental issues can still harm themselves or others without guns, the fact is that people are also getting harmed with guns. No gun starts out for the illegal market in this country, but they make their way there somehow. I'm sure theft puts some of them there, but some get there through "bad" private transfers too. As a gun owner, I feel a responsibility to society to help prevent that from happening. It may not have made a difference with the latest shooting or with many others, but it's something we can do address, even if private immediate family transfers are left alone. I'm for making the background check necessary on all private transfers (or at least most). At the worst, didn't Heller allow DC's licensing requirement? So if it's a matter of supporting the idea of NICS on every transfer or being bullheaded and getting stuck with all-out licensing, which would you prefer?

For mental health, Hacker15E is right. It's important to not make those who end up in the system, vets or not, feel like they'll have to lose their rights to get treatment. I understand why a vet wouldn't seek out help for a mental issue for fear of losing his or her guns - making them feel that way doesn't help anyone. I could also see if that were the case with a family member with a mental illness in the same household. I agree on defining which mental health issues make one truly dangerous and which ones don't. And I agree that there has to be a clear way to get off any list once someone is on it so that those who seek help and are effectively treated have their rights restored when they are no longer a danger.

bigfatdave
December 23, 2012, 10:32 PM
- Figure out how to determine which types of mental illness diagnoses should go into NICS. Figure out how to add those various types of documented mental illnesses into the system,

Still vulnerable to input from malicious "mental health professionals"
The entire concept of NICS is flawed. If someone can't be trusted with a new gun from a dealer, they can't be trusted with a vehicle, power tools, black powder, high places, access to freeways, or any of the other things that go with freedom.

We let these people pilot 2500-pound motorized battering rams in public, why is hassling them about a boomstick an issue?

leadcounsel
December 24, 2012, 12:43 AM
Background checks on ALL transfers are problematic.

1) Added cost and inconvenience.
2) Lists
3) Do YOU want to give your home address, DL, CPL, etc. to a stranger just to buy a handgun? Not me. Talk about serious Operational Security issues and Identity Theft problems. Now you've just given your home address to a stranger who knows you have guns.

cbpagent72
December 24, 2012, 08:33 AM
Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

Hacker15E
December 24, 2012, 09:15 AM
Still vulnerable to input from malicious "mental health professionals"

The entire concept of NICS is flawed. If someone can't be trusted with a new gun from a dealer, they can't be trusted with a vehicle, power tools, black powder, high places, access to freeways, or any of the other things that go with freedom.

It doesn't really matter if you think the concept is flawed or wrong -- it is the law, and there is no chance in the near term that it is going away.

My proposal was, since we have to live with it, it is better to spend time and money and effort trying to make it as efficient and effective as possible.

Old Fuff
December 24, 2012, 10:39 AM
The powers-that-be don't want to make the NICS system available to private sellers, but rather to force these sales to be processed through an FFL. In the United States most firearms are not registered, and this is particularily true of those made before 1968. Gun control advocates know that to work, future control measures must get these firearms listed into a database.

I am at a loss to understand why some folks on our side want to help them.

mljdeckard
December 24, 2012, 01:12 PM
^^ Yep.

Old Fuff
December 24, 2012, 03:18 PM
The really important reality to remember is in the Supreme Court's Heller decision the "right to keep and bear arms" was established as a civil right, equal to all of the others listed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

In the McDonald decision this was incorporated, and thereafter applied to the states as well.

It is improbable that a ban that clearly violated these decisions would stand up in court. In the past they could because previous court decisions usually took the position that the purpose of the 2nd, Amendment was to allow states to have militias. Heller and McDonald ended this interpretation.

The current extent of gun, magazine and ammunition sales - and the numbers they represent, clearly show that our community is large enough to deal with many legislators who will in less then 2 years be up for reelection.

The president may issue Executive Orders, (that will quickly be challenged) and the Congress may (or may not pass laws) that will also be quickly challenged in the light of Heller and McDonald as well as a number of other recent lower court decisions.

Never before has our position been this strong, contrary to what the leftist mainstream media is putting out.

Beau Bo
December 24, 2012, 04:48 PM
The powers-that-be don't want to make the NICS system available to private sellers, but rather to force these sales to be processed through an FFL. In the United States most firearms are not registered, and this is particularily true of those made before 1968. Gun control advocates know that to work, future control measures must get these firearms listed into a database.

I was under the impression that the weapons I purchased through a FFL and for which I submitted info for a background check were already in a "database". My understanding is that once the background check was approved the weapon/serial no. info was added to the form - isn't this a type of "registration"?...

nazshooter
December 24, 2012, 05:03 PM
Beau Bo: The background check and the 4473 form are two separate things. The background check data is supposed to be destroyed once it has served it's purpose and the 4473 stays with your FFL. This makes it possible for the police to trace a gun found at a crime scene by first going to the manufacturer, then to the wholesaler, then the gun shop and finally to your front door. What they cannot do with this system is to get an answer to the question of "what guns does Beau Bo own?" Your state may keep additional records and some people may rightly suspect that the background check data isn't really being destroyed but this is how it's supposed to work at the Federal level.

gym
December 24, 2012, 05:19 PM
If they go too far, it will be overturned on appeal. It's really that simple.The rights have already been established from former decisions.

leadcounsel
December 24, 2012, 05:23 PM
The really important reality to remember is in the Supreme Court's Heller decision the "right to keep and bear arms" was established as a civil right, equal to all of the others listed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

In the McDonald decision this was incorporated, and thereafter applied to the states as well.

It is improbable that a ban that clearly violated these decisions would stand up in court. In the past they could because previous court decisions usually took the position that the purpose of the 2nd, Amendment was to allow states to have militias. Heller and McDonald ended this interpretation.

The current extent of gun, magazine and ammunition sales - and the numbers they represent, clearly show that our community is large enough to deal with many legislators who will in less then 2 years be up for reelection.

The president may issue Executive Orders, (that will quickly be challenged) and the Congress may (or may not pass laws) that will also be quickly challenged in the light of Heller and McDonald as well as a number of other recent lower court decisions.

Never before has our position been this strong, contrary to what the leftist mainstream media is putting out.

Challenges take years and lots of money in courts. The damage could be done, even if reversed 5 years later. And the final pieces of the puzzle come into play when the SCOTUS is stacked by Obama. He may ultimately put 3-5 new Justices in his 8 years. OMG the thought makes me sick.

readyeddy
December 24, 2012, 05:24 PM
The Democrats will probably find a way to avoid passing anti gun laws on the national level. The election of 1994 is still fresh in the minds of many and no elected official wants to commit political suicide. That's why the NRA is offering no compromises. They've seen it all many times before.

Of course we are also doomed to repeat history at some point in time. People will always forget eventually, and that's why we have repeating patterns like economic bubbles and busts.

But for now, 1994 is not that long ago and the major players today were around when Clinton was in office. Look for the real push for anti gun laws in five or ten years from now when Clinton's generation pass into their 70's and beyond.

leadcounsel
December 24, 2012, 05:36 PM
The Democrats will probably find a way to avoid passing anti gun laws on the national level. The election of 1994 is still fresh in the minds of many and no elected official wants to commit political suicide.

People keep repeating this but I see it differently and disagree. Folks like Biden, Boxer, Finestien, and others are still in power. They have been rewarded by their anti-gun positions. The Dems see that the nation has an appetite for gun control. Heck the President said he wanted to ban guns in October and he got elected for petes sake! They feel they have impunity. WE are going to see a firestorm of anti-gun proposals.

Old Dog
December 24, 2012, 05:56 PM
I pretty much concur with you here. I'll be mightily (and most pleasantly, of course) surprised if private transfers don't go away. The "gun show" loophole as well. (Although WAC in our state permits sales only to/from members, who all undergo background checks.)

As for a reincarnation of the old AWB -- the banning of mere features such as bayonet lugs and flashhiders -- we SHOULD be able to fight that nonsense. Magazine capacity caps -- we SHOULD be able to fight this concept, but I suspect we may be betrayed by those within our ranks and capacity limits come in as a compromise.

All of you who didn't believe we'd ever be back at this point -- you know who you are -- stating for the record that the Dems in Congress wouldn't risk further gun-control efforts, do you feel silly now?

No conspiracy theory here, but it sure does look like a few groups had a plan in place for when a certain type of tragic event transpired ... And we were all caught unprepared.

readyeddy
December 24, 2012, 05:58 PM
Absolutely, it could be now and that's why we need to be ready to support gun rights. But if they want to go down this road, then there will be a backlash of some kind.

Just remember that what they say is not necessarily what they do.

Look at the fiscal cliff. To me it's clear that both sides want to go over the cliff. Going over the cliff is the only way achieve necessary tax increases and spending cuts, and it gives them cover to blame the other side so they can keep their jobs.

It's a complex process. I don't believe the NRA will ever propose laws to make video games illegal. But they can certainly say that the video games are contributing to desensitizing our young.

Keep the faith and stay calm. Things will eventually work out so long as we show up for the polls and let our voices be heard. But for now, we can enjoy our Christmas holiday. May all my gun supporting brothers and sisters have a merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

mljdeckard
December 24, 2012, 06:11 PM
Boxer, Feinstein, Lautenberg, and McCarthy are all getting old. They know this is probably their last shot. Doesn't mean they are in an ideal position to take it.

robhof
December 24, 2012, 06:55 PM
The anti's always talk compromise, but they want total gun bans as a cure for all gun crime. and how's that working for the drug war for the past 50 years?????:what::what::neener:

blaisenguns
December 24, 2012, 07:13 PM
Hopefully the Reps will filibuster any legislation about "gun control", as they have been doing in most cases for the last four years. Now I was thinking, I have a .50 beowulf which uses standard 30rd Ar mags (with the feed lips bent), since thes are advertised as 10 rd mags, couldnt we skirt the law that way?

GWARGHOUL
December 25, 2012, 11:06 AM
I have a .50 beowulf which uses standard 30rd Ar mags (with the feed lips bent), since thes are advertised as 10 rd mags, couldnt we skirt the law that way?

Dude, thats supposed to be a secret for now.

Deanimator
December 25, 2012, 12:28 PM
Unless the Republicans want to lose the House next time around, there won't be ANY gun control legislation.
There probably won't be any ludicrous overreach by Obama via executive order. Having it slapped down or widely defied would make him look like a jackass.
It's VERY likely the Obama will turn the BATFE "loose" as Clinton did. How many innocent people will be harassed or killed due to this is anybody's guess.

burk
December 25, 2012, 02:45 PM
Beau Bo: The background check and the 4473 form are two separate things. The background check data is supposed to be destroyed once it has served it's purpose and the 4473 stays with your FFL. This makes it possible for the police to trace a gun found at a crime scene by first going to the manufacturer, then to the wholesaler, then the gun shop and finally to your front door. What they cannot do with this system is to get an answer to the question of "what guns does Beau Bo own?" Your state may keep additional records and some people may rightly suspect that the background check data isn't really being destroyed but this is how it's supposed to work at the Federal level.
Nazshooter, As a dealer (or employee) I can state it goes further than that. NICS only ask if the requested Background check is for a "long gun" or "hand gun", they don't ask for any particular information on the firearm. It could be a Youth 22. or a Barrett 50, the guy at the other end of the check wouldn't know the difference. And while the dealer puts down serial # and make and model info on the 4473 this has no bearing on the outcome of a NICS check.

While dealers are required by law to keep the 4473's, the ATF has no file of them (unless they are part of an active criminal investigation). And NICS is required to destroy all information of past checks after six months I believe. So they are legally barred from creating a registry of background checks.

blaisenguns
December 25, 2012, 11:17 PM
Dude, thats supposed to be a secret for now.

These people are realy stupid. I mean the ydont even know what a barrel shroud is.

Schwatt
December 26, 2012, 12:01 PM
I see one of two scenarios:
-They focus on magazines, and our chances are about 50/50
-They let DiFi go for the full enchilada and get smacked down, and nothing happens.

Either way, I look for anything imported to be gone, Saiga-12's,maybe all auto shotguns that take more than 3 rounds, to become DD's, and anything else they can think of to do by EO. My gut feeling is that legislation fails and Obama does whatever he can unilaterally. That is almost certainly the best thing for him politically, as well as for the D. party, which we all know is what really drives decisions in Washington.

That's every single one in existence right now.

Even the liberals can't think that is a good idea. When John Q hunter's favorite deer slayer is on the chopping block, the outrage would be massive.

Hacker15E
December 26, 2012, 12:12 PM
Unless the Republicans want to lose the House next time around, there won't be ANY gun control legislation.

I think that memories are VERY short, and likely few politicians think that the fallout from the 94 AWB at election time will repeat itself in '14 based on a AWB vote in '13.

Although it shows just how much "they" fear the NRA (all fun control advocates, be they in the media, lobbyists, or politicians), look at how many articles last week were about how "the NRA has lost its power over Congress."

I think when they say/print such things it is in an effort to try and make it true, and not as a statement of fact.

That being said, until the votes are actually cast, we won't know either way.

thagunman
December 27, 2012, 06:14 PM
ok and if they allow our health records into a background check whos to say a miscarried child wouldnt be grounds for refusing a transfer? or a broken bone? one could argue that a miscarried child would create depression and that woman would be unfit to posess a firearm. a broken bone could infer a fight took place and therefore refuse a firearms transfer based on the possibility of a potential retaliation which in fact never occured.

exavid
December 27, 2012, 08:41 PM
One thing I don't understand about gun registration is what good does it do? Usually these madmen kill themselves after their spree. It isn't hard to find the murder weapon. If it was stolen so what? Either the owner reported the theft or he didn't know it was missing. So what difference to the act of murder does that cause?
Gun control by the government really is meaningless. To do any minimal good at all you'd have to confiscate all civilian owned guns. That isn't going to happen and of course it won't get guns out of the hands of people who do bad things with guns.

col_temp
December 27, 2012, 11:25 PM
There probably won't be any ludicrous overreach by Obama via executive order. Having it slapped down or widely defied would make him look like a jackass.
deanimator,
As if this hasn't happened already. He is just arrogant enough that I wouldn't be surprised to see him try. And them of course blame everything on Bush!.

Great comments all.
I suspect that we will see something about the mental health ownership. I agree it's a bit of a slippery slope, and has unintended consequences.

I wouldn't surprised at some push to place a limit of some type Like CA on mags or such (As useless as that proposal is. Do they have any clue how long it takes someone with a "legal" mag to switch to another!)

I hope that there isn't a compromise that places the online sale of Ammo or magazines or parts in the bust bin. I really don't see the numerous suppliers out there allowing that nonsense to go on.

I wish this crap about the "gun show" loophole would go away. There isn't one. What it should be instead is a private sale loophole.
So i can't sell you my grandpas gun without an FFL. What's next? I can't sell you a knife either? Then I can't sell you any kitchen utensils as well? Where does big government end?

col_temp
December 27, 2012, 11:27 PM
To do any minimal good at all you'd have to confiscate all civilian owned guns.
exavid, They have already tried this. Any one remember after Katrina? Confiscated all the guns from legal owners. Guess what, violent crime went through the roof. Only the criminals were armed and the police when you could find one who wasn't running one of the crime gangs!

exavid
December 27, 2012, 11:41 PM
col temp I am very aware of what happened after Katrina. Can you imagine what would happen if they tried that on a national scale? There just aren't enough feds, police or even Armed Forces to do that. As for what they might try is to pass Diane Frankenstein's bill which calls for registration of all "assault rifles" and licensing among other general irritations. I only hope our Republicans in the House can hold the line and that some right thinking Democrats will do the right thing. Even then Obama can wreak havoc on gun owners with the EPA. Outright outlawing lead bullets due to contaminatin claims, hazardous chemicals in primers, toxic material in gunpowder, air pollution by firearms, etc. There are a lot of ways he could make it very difficult for gun owners without needing approval by congress. In fact I'm wondering why his EPA chief just resigned. Who knows who will replace that fool.

joeschmoe
December 27, 2012, 11:58 PM
It seems most Americans have forgotten this is a Republic where the government has LIMITED powers and actually does not have the power to fix or do everything/anything that the majority want.

The government has no power to outlaw arms. Writing a new law won't change that.

DammitBoy
December 27, 2012, 11:59 PM
I have no problem believing what we will face is a series of executive orders because "I can't wait for congress to act".

zorro45
December 28, 2012, 12:11 AM
We as gun owners have done a poor job over the years of articulating the reasons for the Second Amendment, even to the point that many gun owning "sportsmen" do not understand that 2A is not about duck hunting or personal defense. It behooves all of us to do a little reading at www.jpfo.com in case you need to discuss this with anyone. Word of advice, don't even try this with a drunk person. It is very frustrating.

goon
December 28, 2012, 01:22 AM
Be that as it may, Heller confirms the Second Amendment's protection of a right to self-defense with weapons in common use. I believe that resistance to tyranny was mentioned, but only in passing, and I am not aware of any Supreme Court ruling that solidly enumerates resisting oppressive government specifically.
Don't get me wrong, I totally support your understanding of the Second Amendment. But right now, what we have is a ruling that protects self defense, and the AR-15 (and other semi-auto rifles) are both common and damn fine tools for that purpose. That's the ground that most of my arguments stand on right now.

X-Rap
December 28, 2012, 01:44 AM
I think to many of us think that there is or will be some sort of rational disscussion on this gun debate.
More and more I think the subjects of this country really do believe guns kill people and with great malice just like blizzards, tornados, hurricanes, and SUV's. As I listen to the news reports on the latest winter storm I can't help but wonder what the news media's facination with body counts is but if they can attach mayhem to a news item they sure will do it. Just listen to the reports on how 12 were killed by the latest storm as though we should be up in arms about how to stom the carnage.
Many Americans have been duped by the 24 hr news cycle and their hunger to report something.
Don Henley says it best. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46bBWBG9r2o

BSA1
December 28, 2012, 10:21 AM
There is the more likely option that any additional gun control laws will not gain enough support for anything to change for the worse and the role of the gun for self-defense will become more accepted. Consider that;

Gun owners will turn off the naysayer on THR that are convinced that some restrictions on gun ownership are impossible to stop.

Gun owners will turn off the naysayer on other forums that are convinced that some restrictions on gun ownership are impossible to stop.

Gun owners will turn off the naysayer on the media such as TV that are using a full court press to convince the public that some restrictions on gun ownership are necessary to protect children and impossible to stop.

Talk radio and the Internet will effectively counter the governments and mass media misinformation campaign.

The majority of people will examine the effect of the Clinton AWB ban 1994 – 2004 and conclude it did not have the effect on reducing crime as the media would have us to believe.

The majority of people will realize that the proposed gun control bans are just more of the same failed policies in the past.

The vast legalization of CCW in most states have made many voters to realize S.D. is a personal responsibily.

Mass shootings such as Columbine and malls prove the police are totally ineffective in responding in time to prevent the damage caused by the shooters.

The presence of a armed citizen at the scene has prevented many injuries and deaths.

Gun owners are our own worse enemies.

CoRoMo
December 28, 2012, 11:36 AM
Anti-gun laws will likely be along party lines, with a few swing voters.
I tend to believe that there will be plenty of swing voters from both parties. Several republicans will hope to garner favor in the media by voting for gun control and there will be some democrats that can't support gun control lest they lose their elected seat given to them by the district that they come from.

I keep going back and forth, believing that there will be something or nothing able to pass at all. With the majority in the House, it seems unlikely that anything will get passed, but it all depends on how 'hot' this issue remains as we gain distance from the day of the tragedy. Like most prominent issues of our day -and you can see one very shining example occurring right now- this legislation will likely be debated and kicked around congress for this spring session, only to be presented for a vote, in whatever remnant form exists, just before congress breaks for summer come Memorial Day.

waidmann
December 29, 2012, 11:52 PM
Both G.H.W. Bush and W.J. Clinton in 1989 and 1994 issued Ex. Orders we live with. I expect some more in the import of weapons, parts and magazines.

When Schumer was managing the election campaign that produced the Democratic majority in the Senate he conceeded that in order to elect and retain the loyalty of Blue Dogs, reproductive and firearms issues were off limits for the foreseeable future. Those folks are still in the Senate. So far only Manchin of WV has indicated a change of heart.

In response to the 1996 Port Aurthur massacre Australia voted a gun grab. They paid A$ 500 million (about $350 m. US) for between 631,000-643,000 firearms. Later they restricted handguns paying A$21 million for 18,814 handguns and then had to permit 15,184 import replacements. They like we have requirements for just compensation. I don't think they can simply defer this into a conversion to an NFA default on transfer. Ditto on magazines, I doubt they can avoid either buying or grandfathering.

The reality seems to distill down to how to separate mad men from guns, which seems doubtful. And, failing that how many magazine changes will we require a mad man to make?

exavid
December 30, 2012, 12:09 AM
One thing that is helping give us some time to cool off on gun control is the "fiscal cliff", more and more media time is being taken up with that as is a lot of pressure in congress and the executive. All of that is slowing the kneejerk response to the CT atrocity. Now if only the real problem, the mental health issue, will come to the forefront that will take more pressure off gun control.

DammitBoy
December 30, 2012, 12:23 AM
Last time I checked, there were illegal laws all over this country that infringe upon an enumerated constitutional right to bear arms.

exavid
December 30, 2012, 12:42 AM
It's not even necessary for the government to attack the second amendment directly. The EPA could make it nearly impossible to get ammunition by simple regulation. Lead shot is pretty well on the way out, lead bullets in general could go the same way. Gun powder emits a good bit of carbon as it burns, the EPA is on a crusade now to reduce carbon emission. Then there are the primers that have chemical mixtures that could be restricted by EPA fiat. We have to keep watch on more than just Congress and the Executive Branch. If the EPA causes ammo prices to quadruple or worse, it's not going to matter what kind of firearm you own, shooting will be greatly restricted just due to cost.

klyph
December 30, 2012, 01:10 AM
Last time I checked, there were illegal laws all over this country that infringe upon an enumerated constitutional right to bear arms.

And there are free men all over this country that refuse to abide by them. Their numbers are growing.

Frank Ettin
December 30, 2012, 01:52 AM
Last time I checked, there were illegal laws all over this country that infringe upon an enumerated constitutional right to bear arms. Not until a court so rules. Your opinion doesn't really count.

And there are free men all over this country that refuse to abide by them. Their numbers are growing. And they're called criminals. Be advised that on THR it is not acceptable to support or encourage violating the law.

velojym
December 30, 2012, 02:00 AM
The sensitivity of the FAA to "mental health" issues and the ease with which they will pull a pilot's certificates over even innocuous quirks has kept many commercial pilots from seeking help when they do have a problem. After all, they put incredible amounts of money, time, and effort into getting those ratings.
To a lesser extent, but still pretty important, applying arbitrary "mental health" limits on a human being's rights, will have much the same effect... especially considering the types of people who are in charge of determining where the line is to be drawn.
You know, people like Carolyn McCarthy, who is still scratching her head on what the heck a barrel shroud is... even after she included it specifically in her legislation.

joeschmoe
December 30, 2012, 02:11 AM
They're certainly room for reasonable debate on what might be "grey" areas of "reasonable" limits. Before you say they're aren't any, I'll remind you that no rights are unlimited, never have been, never will be. But fundamental rights, like arms and speech, have significant limits on government powers.

The original '94 so-callled AWB is a good example. It did NOT ban "assault weapons" as most people think. It only banned certain cosmetic features. You could still go to the store and buy a Bushmaster XM15, with a fixed stock, no flash hider, no bayonet lug.
Are those "reasonable"? Most of us would say no, Congress thought yes. We voted them out and then it expired.
They could NOT ban all semi-auto rifles or all AR15's. I think the courts would strike it down as an unConstitutional restriction on the right to arms.


Any such law would have to pass 2 hurdles. Politics and legal. Any serious "ban" would fail at one or both. Incrimentalism is dangerous, but they're will not be a total ban on "arms".

goon
January 14, 2013, 01:02 AM
I am more worried about a magazine capacity ban than an AW ban (although both are troubling).
They could legalize M-16's tomorrow and make them available in every grocery store, and it wouldn't make any difference if we were limited to three round magazines.
For self defense, and for the Second Amendment's original mission as an obstacle to tyranny, we need high capacity magazines.

Wolfman131
January 14, 2013, 02:54 AM
c. Deeper mental health ownership restrictions. Possibly for anyone that has sought mental health treatment, including PTSD and TBI. I Possibly a total ban for you or anyone in your household, much like felony restrictions. think this will happen.


It has already happened, congress passed a law summarily stripping veterans suffering from PTSD, of their 2nd amendment rights. Thousands of men & women who sacrificed by serving this nation, have been staked through the heart in exactly this fashion.

So, there is a precedent, isn't there.

Pointshoot
January 14, 2013, 09:54 AM
BSA 1 - VERY WELL SAID !

Since this thread is about the REALITY of all this, here's my take on it - - -

Youre more likely to be struck by lightening than be a victim in one of these mass shootings (just check the 10 year statistics for both events). None of the proposals or counter-proposals are likely to have any significant impact on such unlikely, rare events anyway. It'd make more 'sense' to enact new laws 'to protect us' from being struck by lightening.

This is all being driven by emotionalism after the last tragic shooting involving young children. "Never let a crisis go to waste." Those on the anti side at the highest levels are likely to be just as aware of the statistics showing a decrease in violent crime over the last decade, as we are. They are likely to be as aware as we are that the sunset of the 'Assault Weapons' Ban on certain 'scary' looking external features on rifles - had no impact on violent crime. They know that a place like the UK, where many guns are banned and the others are highly restricted - - - have much higher violent crime rates than the US. They just use clubs, knives, hands, etc to do the violence.

Their agenda is to disarm the American people. Not to 'prevent another tragedy' (remember the lightening strikes) - but because they fear an armed citizenry, for whatever reason. They use whatever methods they can get away with - new laws through Congress, possible executive orders and administrative orders to various agencies to make purchasing more difficult, one sided media reporting, or international treaties to go around Congress.

It is also a REALITY that gun and ammo sales are at incredibly high levels. NICS background checks have been at extremely high levels. Most of us have gone into stores where weve bought for years, only to find lots of very thinly stocked shelves and gun racks.

We hear from the news media that 'the American people want more sensible gun regulation'. Many seem to think that we'll have to 'appear sensible' and go along with some further (and irrelevant to mass shootings) restrictions. But is this often repeated claim by the media true ? Given the quality of 'news reporting' today, who knows what the REALITY is regarding what Americans want.

Americans do seem to be voting on this . . . with their wallets.

I hope people on our side aren't bluffed into actions that would be un-necessary and make no impact on lightening strikes or on mass shootings. The more and longer the actual facts are put out there, the better is is for the 2A.

DammitBoy
January 14, 2013, 01:39 PM
Not until a court so rules. Your opinion doesn't really count.



And when will the courts rule? And is the NRA doing anything to speed up or support these rulings being in our favor?

Why is it against the law for states to infringe on any other of the Bill of Rights amendments, but the 2nd is fair game?

No state can take away a woman's right to vote, but they can infringe willy nilly on my right to bear arms. :cuss:

blaisenguns
January 16, 2013, 10:15 PM
The majority of people will examine the effect of the Clinton AWB ban 1994 – 2004 and conclude it did not have the effect on reducing crime as the media would have us to believe.


The problem is this fact goes un noticed. Even the NRA isnt putting this out like it should be. The Department of Justice said it was ineffective!

No state can take away a woman's right to vote, but they can infringe willy nilly on my right to bear arms.

But that is "common sense restrictions" propogated by people who support the second amend ment BUT...

The problem is Obama is going to put his political machine to work on this, his very, very effective political machine. If we do not mobilize in the same fashion we are done.

michaelbsc
January 17, 2013, 10:47 AM
...The problem is Obama is going to put his political machine to work on this, his very, very effective political machine. If we do not mobilize in the same fashion we are done.

Bingo!

And he isn't even being sneaky about it.

There exist two groups that hurt us most. The Obama worshipers and the Obama demonizers. Neither of those groups is rational most of the time.

I'm not going to defend O's positions, since I disagree with most of them. But I am going to defend that the guy is not a foreign operative purposely undermining the country for nefarious controllers feeding him instructions.

He's a slick politician out for personal gain at the expense of dupes. He'll take left wing and right wing dupes as necessary.

We do not want to become his dupes.

muskoka4444
January 17, 2013, 09:26 PM
---

goldie
January 18, 2013, 02:57 PM
They will have to put more restrictions than the '94 ban or they & the public will think it was not effective; they have a big agenda to prove something is being done this time,& its going to be worse than anything that was done in '94.

miles1
January 18, 2013, 09:53 PM
Ok........So let me get this striaght.Obama is going to put the AR and 10 round ban to vote on the Senate?Is that the next step?If so.....from what im reading so far it looks like he won't get his wish.correct?

goon
January 19, 2013, 09:49 PM
Miles - right now I think the big push Obama is going to make is for mandatory background checks (which could still be done without a 4473 being filled out, so I'd support that), magazine capacity ban (which I don't support) and an "assault weapons" ban, which I also don't support.
I admit that I'm a bit of an extremist on gun rights. I think if the Court ever got hold of a real case, they may have to find that belt-fed MG's and even RPG's are covered under the Second Amendment, but I'm not holding my breath.

But the banning of high capacity magazines and semi-automatic firearms based on how they look, or on the fact that they are semi-automatic, is even more extreme on the other side. A centrist could approach this in a lot of ways aside from a total ban. I wouldn't shed tears about showing a DL or something to buy some accessories - I've had to do that with some places I buy online from already. But none of these people are the slightest bit concerned with even coming up with a solution that could work for everyone. They want a total ban on anything more powerful than a pitchfork.
Every time I feel like responding to an online discussion anymore, I am going to write a letter to a representative or Senator or send a check to the NRA.

Having said that, what is the NRA doing? They don't seem so on top of this. Where is our public relations? Where are the people plinking aluminum cans in NY with their Ruger 10/22's who will be lawbreakers in two months? Where is the mom from Georgia who emptied that gun into an intruder without stopping him? Why isn't the biggest and most well-funded organization taking a more aggressive stance?

Right now, Obama is trying to mobilize his supporters to lobby some key Congressmen and Senators who are afraid of losing their seats if they would vote in favor of more gun control. I have read that his strategy is to show them that they would still have support from their constituents if they vote in favor of more restrictions. About 200,000 supporters was the number I read.
I don't think these people can stay in it as long as we can. I don't think they're willing to send $100 to an anti-gun senator's opponent's campaign fund, but many of us are. But we still have to stay on them with a constant barrage of public outcry.
And I don't know why the NRA isn't mobilizing its entire membership to do exactly that.

miles1
January 20, 2013, 06:31 PM
Goon,
Thanks for the response.From those that know way more than i do concerning this issue,they agree with you as well and seem to think there won't be a AR or Mag ban except in states such as NY/NJ.Thanks again for taking the time to help me understand this.

goon
January 20, 2013, 11:47 PM
Miles - glad I could help, but there are many on this board who educate me on this stuff too.

And you can thank me, and them, by sending a letter to your representative and to each senator. ;)

VVelox
January 21, 2013, 03:29 AM
I think that the NRA should stop the silly push for armed school security and instead go all in to reform/improve the NICS system.

- Improve the infrastructure of the system; better computers, better updates out of sources

- Improve access and open access to NICS to all citizens for use in private sales

- Figure out how to determine which types of mental illness diagnoses should go into NICS. Figure out how to add those various types of documented mental illnesses into the system, AND ensure there is a reliable process to get one's name OFF that list once a medical professional clears someone.

It isn't a "solution" by any stretch, but it is a needed improvement to the system and could be shown to the gun control crowd as something that could actually help.
It is hard to understate how terrible the mental health idea there is.

Unless they have been hauled before a court based on mental health issues their rights should remain intact.

What you are suggesting will just cause gun owners to not seek out help.

If you enjoyed reading about "Let's discuss the REALITY of where we are at on the 2A and Gun Control" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!