How would the US enforce Feinstein's plan?


PDA






Lex Luthier
December 28, 2012, 10:32 AM
So gentlemen, 3 January 2013 rolls around and Senator Feinstein's gun ban is passed. What are they going to do?

1) Expect complete honest and voluntary compliance?
2) Break down the doors of those who are on some list and search the house?
3) Will we be allowed to defend our property?
4) Will we be forced to suffer an ala carte US Constitution?

I expect a few things: we will hide a lot of stuff, the federal agents will be forced to turn into nationalist jackboots or lose their jobs, a lot of us will be forced to make stands we are not prepared for, nor expected.

This is not a crazy rant, just a precautionary thought.

If you enjoyed reading about "How would the US enforce Feinstein's plan?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
joecil
December 28, 2012, 11:04 AM
Well lets assume it actually clears both the house and senate. Now that is highly unlikely with even the next congress much less this one. This is especially true with the current fiscal cliff and debt limit both of which will lead to more layoffs of not only private but major cuts at the federal and local levels. So with that said even if it passed they wouldn't have enough man power to come and get them. Now that would also assume they know where and who has guns, which they don't. Most states don't keep records of gun sales at all except at a dealer in paper format. The ATF doesn't have a database to track gun sales so where do they start? Simple logic tells you it can't be done at all even if the law was put into effect, which is very unlikely to begin with.

hso
December 28, 2012, 11:19 AM
If you've hidden your stuff it isn't of any interest to them. You can't legally buy one going forward and you can't legally sell one so hiding them takes them out of use.

Whether you decide to comply with registration or not (understand that there's nothing in the proposed Feinstein AWB that makes it possible to do most of what's proposed) you won't be using or selling them so they're effectively useless. Like burying money in mason jars in the back yard, no use to you or anyone else.

JustinJ
December 28, 2012, 11:26 AM
The inability to completely enforce laws has never prevented them from being passed before. You have to understand that laws like these are not just about the immediate. The thinking is that over time more and more guns will be confiscated, wear out or break, etc so the overall numbers go down. It also limits the number of people who own them through cost and hassle. The same logic is probably behind the closing of the machine gun registry. Another common misconception is that laws are passed with the sole goal of completely stopping specific type crimes. In reality nobody expects this but rather are trying to at least reduce the incidence.

MachIVshooter
December 28, 2012, 11:40 AM
1) Expect complete honest and voluntary compliance?

Would be completely naive and unrealistic

2) Break down the doors of those who are on some list and search the house?

They can't. They lack the manpower to do so, especially once you take the total number of "agents" (LEO, Military, ATF, etc) and remove those who refuse on moral grounds and those who refuse because they want to live.

3) Will we be allowed to defend our property?

Depends on how you look at at. The constitution says yes, but numerous laws will make you a criminal for doing so. In the end, though, the only part of this question that you really need to ask is how you'll be remembered posthumously.


4) Will we be forced to suffer an ala carte US Constitution?

We already are.

CharlieDeltaJuliet
December 28, 2012, 11:42 AM
Mach, you hit the nail on the head again...

JBrady555
December 28, 2012, 11:44 AM
If they do pass something then all the gun owners in the U.S. should just ban together and not comply. Just say no.

hso
December 28, 2012, 11:48 AM
We should ban together BEFORE they pass something and tell our elected officials NO.

Prohibition didn't stop alcohol from being consumed out of sight of the law and a firearms prohibition won't stop Americans from keeping their guns out of sight.

My worst fear is that the details of registering firearms will be so simple that most people will simply say, "Oh, it doesn't cost me anything and I can simply mail in a post card? Well, sure.". We need to make sure that there's a poison pill provision in any AWB that makes it expensive and odious to the average gun owner to comply so the greatest number possible squawk about it loudly.

Bopleo
December 28, 2012, 11:50 AM
We should ban together BEFORE they pass something and tell our elected officials NO.

Prohibition didn't stop alcohol from being consumed out of sight of the law and a firearms prohibition won't stop Americans from keeping their guns out of sight.

My worst fear is that the details of registering firearms will be so simple that most people will simply say, "Oh, it doesn't cost me anything and I can simply mail in a post card? Well, sure.". We need to make sure that there's a poison pill provision in any AWB that makes it expensive and odious to the average gun owner to comply so the greatest number possible squawk about it loudly.

Even if they are hidden they would still be in the possession of the people and still there when needed for any reason.

tomrkba
December 28, 2012, 11:50 AM
NFA 1934 effectively ended private machinegun ownership by 99% of the common population. What percentage of today's gun owners have a fully automatic weapon? 1-5%? This is a marginalized group that is very vulnerable to legislative attack, especially after Heller.

A six month wait, $200 tax, and local LEO approval on semi-auto rifles will have the same effect on AR-15 pattern rifles.

"ala-carte Constitution"

I called for national demonstrations by gun owners in another thread. It's time to take a few days off and march or we'll start seeing all sorts of crazy government behavior in its "War on Guns". We need to yank their leash, hard.

Cesiumsponge
December 28, 2012, 11:53 AM
Hope for the best but prepare for the worst. Not to put on a paranoid's tinfoil hat, but the same people who celebrated on election day because they were 110% sure Romney would win "by a landslide" were in for a very rude awakening (don't blame me; I voted for Kodos.)

Political plausibility is always changing. A ban like this stood no chance of even making the news until the CT incident. If we have another massive shooting, the emotional pot, still roiling, will spill over and momentum will even be greater. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure so getting these issues taken care of in their infancy stands the greatest chance of success.

For the folks who default to "cold dead hands" but won't take 5 whole minutes to email or call your reps, who are you fooling? You'll be the first to cry uncle and give up your guns if you can't even be bothered to fire off an email or call. Being an Internet commando doesn't work in real life. Plenty of people in other countries were steamrolled by their government. Plenty of countrymen even helped. Americans are no different. Cultures and society may differ but we're sill all the same fundamentally. See:
Milgram experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
Stanford Prison Experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

A ban like this will never be completely effective, but its going to cause a lot of turmoil and mistrust amongst citizens and put us down a worse path. That's why it can't get to that point.

xXxplosive
December 28, 2012, 11:54 AM
Just like they do here in NJ...............and you won't like it.

edfrompa
December 28, 2012, 11:55 AM
Next they will be banning gun forums!! What a crock!!
You bet the gun owners will stick together. This is what the second amendment is all about. This is our right to own and to protect the constitution of this United States of America. I took that oath over fifty years ago. This land is our land, not democrats, republicans, or any other organization that comes along. We the people, one nation under God!! Not Feinstien,.not the politicians. Now you all got me pissed!!!

Slipknot_Slim
December 28, 2012, 11:59 AM
I doubt seriously that Feinstein's bill will pass in its present configuration (whatever that is). I've not even seen a bill yet. The most likely thing to pass, simply because it has the most public support, is a ban on the sale of high capacity magazines. I think even some of the most conservative members of congress might support that in an effort to show their constituents that they are "doing something about the problem". That will be their first step. If the public clamor continues, then they will propose other measures. Hopefully, by that time, some other "crisis" will have developed to divert their attention.

Deanimator
December 28, 2012, 12:09 PM
As ineffectively as the Fugitive Slave Law, and with equivalent levels of danger to the enforcers.

Deanimator
December 28, 2012, 12:13 PM
That will be their first step. If the public clamor continues
WHAT "public clamor"?

All of the "clamor" is coming from:

The commercial news media.
The same anti-gun groups.
The same anti-gun politicians.

I don't see ANY gun control coming out of this... unless the Republicans are willing to lose the House in order to HELP Obama.

Not impossible, but neither is an alien invasion.

Cesiumsponge
December 28, 2012, 12:14 PM
Gun owners will stick together, like they have in New York, California, Chicago, and DC? Where are the protests there? Where was the civil disobedience? Where are the stories of people standing off against "the man" come to take their guns?

Gun owners just cave in and comply, and a few hide their guns like precious loaves of bread in communist Russia and pretend they're exercising their second amendment rights. Others outside those areas "help" fight the cause by providing the ever-helpful advice of "duh, just move!"

Don't kid yourselves. Australia wasn't a nation of sissies. They're just as rugged, individual, and outdoorsy as Americans. You can't even own a pump-action shotgun now. Humans are humans, and easily influenced by authority.

CharlieDeltaJuliet
December 28, 2012, 12:28 PM
Cesiumsponge and HSO are right. Email, write, and call your Reps every chance you get. I have sent 19 letters & somewhere around +/- 30 emails in the past week. I will send that many more in the upcoming week. We cannot back down. I plan on making sure that everyone within ear shot can hear my opinion. I urge everyone else to do the same. Please keep as cool headed and calm as you can, but overwhelm any anti with the facts. While I have "From my Cold Dead Hands" in my signature, I also mean it. I did not fight overseas to have my rights taken away at home. We need to be United NOW, not after...

SuperNaut
December 28, 2012, 12:31 PM
Yep, money goes to pro-2A orgs and/or Alan Gura, letters go to your "representatives." All the rest is just hot air.

Batty67
December 28, 2012, 12:33 PM
Regardless of the eventual outcome, I see at a minimum: magazine capacity restrictions and private sales prohibited. I personally think NRA will need to concede some issues as a we wont back down an inch approach may very well get more components of the AWB passed. But I'm no laywer.

I honestly have little issue with restricting/regulating the private sales of firearms. It DOES provide a non-documentable means for criminals and mentally unstable persons to get weapons. Of course, it affects the vast majority of persons selling firearms in-state (I've sold two handguns myself), but there are other means to sell them that cut into profits but are not terribly expensive of a pain to use. Hello spikes in FFL transfers...

I do not think there will be bans of assault weapons as described or confiscations and mandatory buy-back programs. I think the fed (and states?) will have registered ARs go through some form of NFA (or derivative process) and realize how much money they will bring in. There might be some sort of buy-back program to avoid the NFA madness. I do not think most semiautomatic handguns will get banned, but new ones will ALL be Ca-compliant, or something like that.

For me, the BIG issue is whether existing firearms and magazines will be grandfathered.

SuperNaut
December 28, 2012, 12:38 PM
Regardless of the eventual outcome, I see at a minimum: magazine capacity restrictions and private sales prohibited. I personally think NRA will need to concede some issues as a we wont back down an inch approach may very well get more components of the AWB passed. But I'm no laywer.

I honestly have little issue with restricting/regulating the private sales of firearms. It DOES provide a non-documentable means for criminals and mentally unstable persons to get weapons. Of course, it affects the vast majority of persons selling firearms in-state (I've sold two handguns myself), but there are other means to sell them that cut into profits but are not terribly expensive of a pain to use. Hello spikes in FFL transfers...

I do not think there will be bans of assault weapons as described or confiscations and mandatory buy-back programs. I think the fed (and states?) will have registered ARs go through some form of NFA (or derivative process) and realize how much money they will bring in. There might be some sort of buy-back program to avoid the NFA madness. I do not think most semiautomatic handguns will get banned, but new ones will ALL be Ca-compliant, or something like that.

For me, the BIG issue is whether existing firearms and magazines will be grandfathered.
This will only happen if we let it happen.

Deanimator
December 28, 2012, 12:41 PM
Regardless of the eventual outcome, I see at a minimum: magazine capacity restrictions and private sales prohibited. I personally think NRA will need to concede some issues as a we wont back down an inch approach may very well get more components of the AWB passed. But I'm no laywer.
You're not much of a strategist either.

The other side has maximalist goals. They're willing to achieve them in stages. Unless you have the same goals, there's simply ZERO benefit in altering the time table without altering the goals.

Elimination of private sales has NO purpose beyond future confiscation.

If you REALLY think that you can bargain with the other side, you either don't know the other side OR you DO know them and hope nobody else does.

The answer, yet again is, "NO, I REFUSE."

Batty67
December 28, 2012, 12:47 PM
You're not much of a strategist either.

The other side has maximalist goals. They're willing to achieve them in stages. Unless you have the same goals, there's simply ZERO benefit in altering the time table without altering the goals.

Elimination of private sales has NO purpose beyond future confiscation.

If you REALLY think that you can bargain with the other side, you either don't know the other side OR you DO know them and hope nobody else does.

The answer, yet again is, "NO, I REFUSE."
I'm a scientist and writer-editor. I'm a former Army NG officer. I work in DC in the field of policy and regulations (science, research, and health). So, I think I'm fairl savvy in DC politics. But I'm no expert.

Again, I think SOME gun controls are invetible, and realize they are taking an incremental approach to get more-and-more. My personal opinion is that going "to the table" (they so love that descriptor) with concede nothing approach might backfire. Again, just my opinion.

Again, the main issue will be grandfathering. Yes, no, partially...?

Deanimator
December 28, 2012, 12:58 PM
Again, I think SOME gun controls are invetible, and realize they are taking an incremental approach to get more-and-more. My personal opinion is that going "to the table" (they so love that descriptor) with concede nothing approach might backfire. Again, just my opinion.
"Backfire" HOW???

If they've got the votes for a magazine ban, they've likely got the votes for a rifle ban... and a whole lot more besides.

They've either got the votes or they don't. Right now, they likely don't.

Tell me what CONCEIVABLE reason they might have to not do EVERYTHING they have the votes for. You can't do it because there isn't one.

What do you call a "compromise" where one side agrees to give up a lot and the other side agrees to give up NOTHING, and take EVERYTHING it wants later?

What do WE (and I use the term VERY loosely) get out of such a "compromise"? Chuck Schumer will LIKE us?

What you are advocating is CAPITULATION without a fight.

Surrender on the installment plan is still just surrender.

NO, I REFUSE.

Slipknot_Slim
December 28, 2012, 01:01 PM
WHAT "public clamor"?

All of the "clamor" is coming from:

The commercial news media.
The same anti-gun groups.
The same anti-gun politicians.

I don't see ANY gun control coming out of this... unless the Republicans are willing to lose the House in order to HELP Obama.

Not impossible, but neither is an alien invasion.
That's true, but those groups keep the issue stirred up. The media will keep the thing going until the next story comes along. A recent (yesterday) Gallup poll says that 54% of Americans still view the NRA favorably. I don't see a firearms ban getting passed either. Hopefully, they will leave magazines alone also but I still think that's the most vulnerable area for legislation.

Hollowdweller
December 28, 2012, 01:07 PM
I could see a ban on sale and production of big clips passing as well as requiring background checks for private sales.

I don't think a new AWB would pass. The support for it is not as high as it was in the 90's.

Deanimator
December 28, 2012, 01:10 PM
That's true, but those groups keep the issue stirred up. The media will keep the thing going until the next story comes along.
They ALWAYS keep the issue stirred up, and would continue to do so even if there were NO mass shootings for the next ten years. LIke the late Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH), they "don't care about the crooks; they just want to get the guns."

What they ARE doing with their lavish (and often sympathetic) attention to the mass murderers is chumming the water. They're teaching the next killer (and the next, and the next, ad nauseum) that the way to get the attention he craves is to kill a lot of innocent people. THAT is what's driving these killings in large part. Of course the COMMERCIAL media won't hesitate to prop up their bottom line on a solid foundation of corpses...

22-rimfire
December 28, 2012, 01:11 PM
If the guns are not transferrable even if you "register them", then there will be many many of these rifles that will not see the light of day until needed. Same goes for the magazines. Needed for what?

So what does this accomplish?

Cosmoline
December 28, 2012, 01:14 PM
The free market, as always, has the last word. Look at the huge increase in prices for the forbidden things just on the POTENTIAL that they will be subject to restrictions. If actually put under a retroactive ban, the EBR's, high caps and so on will skyrocket in value just as all illegal goods do. So in addition to having a moral basis for refusing to comply, we'll have a very tasty pecuniary basis for refusing to comply.

Given the financial straits of the feds, and the systemic failure of so many other "wars" they've launched on the population from Prohibition to the War on Drugs, I suspect we're going to be facing a TAX of some sort rather than that blue haired biddy's fantasy ban.

BobTheTomato
December 28, 2012, 01:14 PM
I think the idea behind the plan is that transfers are illegal. In a generation no one will have these firearms.

Cosmoline
December 28, 2012, 01:15 PM
I hear pot is illegal, too. Yet I keep smelling it more and more and more. That brings up another issue--the states. If the states refuse to follow the feds on this just as many are doing with pot, enforcement becomes more and more of a joke. Federal law in general is undermined, the overburdened resources of their criminal enforcement are further hindered, and the whole thing fails.

Slipknot_Slim
December 28, 2012, 01:20 PM
They ALWAYS keep the issue stirred up, and would continue to do so even if there were NO mass shootings for the next ten years. LIke the late Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH), they "don't care about the crooks; they just want to get the guns."

What they ARE doing with their lavish (and often sympathetic) attention to the mass murderers is chumming the water. They're teaching the next killer (and the next, and the next, ad nauseum) that the way to get the attention he craves is to kill a lot of innocent people. THAT is what's driving these killings in large part. Of course the COMMERCIAL media won't hesitate to prop up their bottom line on a solid foundation of corpses...
I can't argue with you on that. I read a study somewhere that said that while these mass shooters are often described as loners, they aren't loners by choice. They are just shunned by their peers, and you're right, they go on these shooting sprees to get attention from a society that ignored them. So, the media does their part by rewarding the shooters with notoriety.

22-rimfire
December 28, 2012, 01:23 PM
In a generation no one will have these firearms.

Yeah, right. I love that. You aren't thinking of the whole picture.... you are thinking about honest people. The Feinstein ban would criminalize every affected AR owner in the country who chose not to "register" them and pay the tax. Once you are a "criminal", legal and illegal transfers mean nothing.

Cubby
December 28, 2012, 01:37 PM
Isn't Canada's registration a multi billion dollar failure? Where would the government get the money to pay for registering millions of guns?

Tony

MachIVshooter
December 28, 2012, 01:42 PM
Once you are a "criminal", legal and illegal transfers mean nothing.

Nor do other violations. If the penatly for not registering their previously non-NFA AR is the same as another NFA violation, why would they not just go ahead and make it full auto?

Batty67
December 28, 2012, 01:42 PM
They ALWAYS keep the issue stirred up, and would continue to do so even if there were NO mass shootings for the next ten years. LIke the late Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH), they "don't care about the crooks; they just want to get the guns."

What they ARE doing with their lavish (and often sympathetic) attention to the mass murderers is chumming the water. They're teaching the next killer (and the next, and the next, ad nauseum) that the way to get the attention he craves is to kill a lot of innocent people. THAT is what's driving these killings in large part. Of course the COMMERCIAL media won't hesitate to prop up their bottom line on a solid foundation of corpses...
I guess will have to disagree Deanimator. I see your points and logic, but I guess I'm not articulating mine well enough. Or you just disagree strongly. I suppose we should just drop it...

BobTheTomato
December 28, 2012, 01:46 PM
Yeah, right. I love that. You aren't thinking of the whole picture.... you are thinking about honest people. The Feinstein ban would criminalize every affected AR owner in the country who chose not to "register" them and pay the tax. Once you are a "criminal", legal and illegal transfers mean nothing.

What I mean by this is that she is thinking about next decade not next week. Yes criminals will still have them. Average law abiding people will not.

Deanimator
December 28, 2012, 02:02 PM
I guess will have to disagree Deanimator. I see your points and logic, but I guess I'm not articulating mine well enough. Or you just disagree strongly. I suppose we should just drop it...
You're articulating your opinions with perfect clarity.

That doesn't change that they are pernicious and amount to a call for abject capitulation.

But as has been pointed out by a number of people here, calls for total surrender to the other side are par for the course whenever the push is on for destruction of the 2nd Amendment.

I haven't the slightest desire to be "liked" or to be seen as "reasonable" by those whose ultimate goal is my total disarmament and reduction to the status of helpless serf.

My answer was, is and always will be "NO, I REFUSE."

BSA1
December 28, 2012, 02:07 PM
Well for starters it is impossible for any AWB to be passed by January 3rd, 2013.

68 years ago the war in Europe was going well for the Allies. France and several small countries had been liberated Allied forces closing on the Rhine when Hitler launched a powerful offensive known as the Battle of the Bulge. The German successes on the battlefield was smashed by General Patton’s 3rd Army, stubborn Allied resistance such as Bastogne and counterattacks such as bombing.

Ike and Patton knew wars are not won by being defensive or by one battle. How much different the war in Europe would have been if the Allied high command had decided the Germans were too powerful and had surrendered?

Today the situation is not unlike the Battle of the Bulge. Pro-gunners have won major victories with concealed carry legal in most states and in the Supreme Court. Suddenly in the face of the anti-gunners assault gun owners what to negotiate a surrender.

The advantage is ours.

mgkdrgn
December 28, 2012, 02:08 PM
Martial law

Slipknot_Slim
December 28, 2012, 02:15 PM
Well for starters it is impossible for any AWB to be passed by January 3rd, 2013.

68 years ago the war in Europe was going well for the Allies. France and several small countries had been liberated Allied forces closing on the Rhine when Hitler launched a powerful offensive known as the Battle of the Bulge. The German successes on the battlefield was smashed by General Patton’s 3rd Army, stubborn Allied resistance such as Bastogne and counterattacks such as bombing.

Ike and Patton knew wars are not won by being defensive or by one battle. How much different the war in Europe would have been if the Allied high command had decided the Germans were too powerful and had surrendered?

Today the situation is not unlike the Battle of the Bulge. Pro-gunners have won major victories with concealed carry legal in most states and in the Supreme Court. Suddenly in the face of the anti-gunners assault gun owners what to negotiate a surrender.

The advantage is ours.
Given the current political climate in Washington, it's impossible to get any legislation passed, let alone an AWB, which is still unpopular with the majority of voters.

MachIVshooter
December 28, 2012, 02:16 PM
Martial law

Nope. Once again, even if you included the memebers of the LEO & military who would not participate on grounds of morality, constitutionality or survival, the agent to gun owner ratio in this country is overwhelmingly in our favor.

You think your local police are willing to go door to door? I doubt it. Even if they agree with the legislation and the action, they know what a dangerous situation actual, forceful disarmament would be for all involved.

Batty67
December 28, 2012, 02:37 PM
You're articulating your opinions with perfect clarity.

That doesn't change that they are pernicious and amount to a call for abject capitulation.

But as has been pointed out by a number of people here, calls for total surrender to the other side are par for the course whenever the push is on for destruction of the 2nd Amendment.

I haven't the slightest desire to be "liked" or to be seen as "reasonable" by those whose ultimate goal is my total disarmament and reduction to the status of helpless serf.

My answer was, is and always will be "NO, I REFUSE."
So much for dropping it. I mean you and my other THR forumites no ill will and am anti-gun control. Have a nice day.

Girodin
December 28, 2012, 02:46 PM
I don't see ANY gun control coming out of this... unless the Republicans are willing to lose the House in order to HELP Obama.

This.

Deanimator
December 28, 2012, 03:46 PM
I mean you and my other THR forumites no ill will and am anti-gun control. Have a nice day.
Maybe, maybe not.

You DO mean us HARM.

You want us to give up our rights without even a struggle.

How you can ADVOCATE acquiescence to extreme anti-gun legislation AND be "anti-gun control" is anybody's guess. Certainly, if you REALLY believe that, there's no RATIONAL explanation.

My assessment is that you DON'T mean it and are just acting as a Judas goat, seeking to dupe gun owners into supporting their own disarmament. The only LOGICAL explanation is that you want gun owners to stop BEING gun owners.

joeschmoe
December 28, 2012, 05:55 PM
How would the US enforce Feinstein's plan?

Through fantasy and wishfull thinking. Until it gets overturned by the Supreme Court. In the end there will be no ban on semi-autos. Read Heller v DC.

22-rimfire
December 28, 2012, 06:07 PM
That would take years....

But I have to admit, it's an interesting conversation.

dogrunner
December 28, 2012, 06:15 PM
I'd add that I'm truly surprised that the 'sniper rifle' issue hasn't received any attention yet............if or not you like or believe it, you'd best be aware that that IS something down the road on the agenda---------those high powered scopes WILL be on the radar, along with those bolt action man killers, all that'll take is another Texas Tower incident.

fatelk
December 28, 2012, 06:30 PM
Suddenly in the face of the anti-gunners assault gun owners what to negotiate a surrender

If you read closely the statements by some gun owners who say they think certain restrictions are inevitable, you will usually see that those making the statement generally support the particular restriction.

I'm not trying to pick on any one person here. I have seen similar statements on different forums and threads recently, to the effect that a magazine ban will happen, and likely restrictions on all private party transfers. Then when you read closely you see that they think those are good ideas anyhow. They don't see it as giving in at all, just something that should have already been done.

Many here are Neugent-style hard core RKBA folks. Those with that perspective need to realize that there are also many gun owners around that are far more comfortable with European style gun ownership, where if you have the money and connections you can still have anything you want, but not the common man. These are usually people who like their guns, but their other politics are typically left-of-center, and they believe as one "progressive" gun-owning acquaintance told me, "I would gladly give up all my guns if it meant getting some social justice in this country."

How you can ADVOCATE acquiescence to extreme anti-gun legislation AND be "anti-gun control" is anybody's guess. Certainly, if you REALLY believe that, there's no RATIONAL explanation.

I think the explanation, for some at least, is that they see certain restrictions as being reasonable and good, not anti-gun at all. I'm not one of those people, and I don't mean to stir anything up; I just thought I'd try to add a different perspective.

gc70
December 28, 2012, 06:35 PM
Feinstein's proposals for registration and to grandfather ownership but prohibit transfers (resulting in eventual confiscation) are a total pipe dream. Americans would not comply with such laws any more than citizens in other countries and probably to a lesser extent.

Consider Germany as an example. Germany has fairly strict firearms laws and registered ownership (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/germany) has been estimated at 7 million firearms. Although guns were aggressively confiscated by occupying armies following both World Wars and were very tightly controlled for 40 years by the Communist government of East Germany, illegally held guns are estimated at 17 million.

JERRY
December 28, 2012, 06:39 PM
they just sit back and wait for you to be involved in a justified shooting....you get a pass on the shooting but 10 years on the gun charge.

or youre in a car wreck coming back from the range...you get interviewed at the hosp. by the cops after they find the illegal guns/mags in your car during an admin. inventory before the tow truck takes it away.....

22-rimfire
December 28, 2012, 06:48 PM
No private gun range (business) will allow illegal guns or magazines to be used in my opinion. No compelling reason to use the AR for home defense and there is likely no reason for the police to ever search your house.

As far as 10 years for a stupid gun charge... that would make a lot of people rather pissed off. There could be unintended consequences to such legal actions.

Deanimator
December 28, 2012, 06:55 PM
I'd add that I'm truly surprised that the 'sniper rifle' issue hasn't received any attention yet............if or not you like or believe it, you'd best be aware that that IS something down the road on the agenda---------those high powered scopes WILL be on the radar, along with those bolt action man killers, all that'll take is another Texas Tower incident.
All of that was bandied about during the first AWB.

Rest assured that an AWB is just the START.

-v-
December 28, 2012, 07:08 PM
I too get rather tired of the defeatist attitude. The fight hasn't started and some people already want to sit down at the armistice table and sign away our rights. I lament how easily they have been brain-washed by the main-stream media.

I would guesstimate that the AWB will be introduced and voted on. Hopefully our side outnumbers theirs - which in the house it should. An other is hopefully to have some maverick legislators screw any AWB bill into oblivion, such as make any proposed legislation so over the top with enough poison pills in it that no self respecting congress critter would dare touch it.

In the new AWB throw in things like "confiscate ALL firearms", "20 year mandatory sentence for possession of ammunition" "no hunting/sporting exemptions" "possession of marijuana punishable by death on sight" "minority votes only count for 3/5th of a vote" etc.

I would almost guarantee you keep amending and screwing any AWB bills up like that enough that nothing will happen of it. Either that or de-claw the bill with statements like "Illegal to sell but not to assemble or posses" I for one am "OK" with the ban of sale of 10+ round mags, as long as its ok for me to buy the parts and put them together myself. Heck, might even make them cheaper to buy the parts separate.

Slipknot_Slim
December 28, 2012, 07:45 PM
Personally, I don't see it happening. The people in Washington can't get together on avoiding the fiscal cliff although they all agree that it needs to be avoided.

But miraculously, these same folks will all join hands to pass an AWB. :rolleyes:

boatmanschneider
December 28, 2012, 07:52 PM
Doctors are already required to ask children if there are any guns in the house and how many. The government has been collecting data for awhile.

22-rimfire
December 28, 2012, 07:55 PM
Doctors are already required to ask children if there are any guns in the house and how many.

Required by whom?

Batty67
December 28, 2012, 09:10 PM
Stupidly getting back into this discussion: I point out that I think a 10-rd limit on magazines is completely retarded and I'm against it. I think restricting private sales of firearms makes *some* sense, and I've sold two pistols in privates sales myself so I'm not coming at this from a theoretical position. I also think those two changes are likely to happen but I do not know the future and hope that I am wrong. Oh, and I renewed my NRA membership today but will not be sleeping in a Courtyard Marriot.

Lastly, as far as I know, I've not been brainwashed by the media, but maybe I have and I don't even realize it...

Derek Zeanah
December 28, 2012, 10:03 PM
Doctors are already required to ask children if there are any guns in the house and how many. The government has been collecting data for awhile.
My wife's a pediatrician and she asks. She covers gun safety along with 4-wheeler safety.

Nobody collects it though. It's like talking about a swimming pool (which kills more kids than guns, by the way) -- perfectly safe if you think it through, dangerous as hell if you ignore it.

But there's no conspiracy here.

EBK
December 28, 2012, 10:17 PM
If its time to hide them its time to use them.

TennJed
December 28, 2012, 10:30 PM
My wife's a pediatrician and she asks. She covers gun safety along with 4-wheeler safety.

Nobody collects it though. It's like talking about a swimming pool (which kills more kids than guns, by the way) -- perfectly safe if you think it through, dangerous as hell if you ignore it.

But there's no conspiracy here.
I agree and see where you are coming from, but he asked REQUIRED by who? Is it required? As far as I know it has never been asked by our doctors and we have small children with recent checkups (4 & 2 y.o.)

Derek Zeanah
December 28, 2012, 10:56 PM
I agree and see where you are coming from, but he asked REQUIRED by who? Is it required? As far as I know it has never been asked by our doctors and we have small children with recent checkups (4 & 2 y.o.)
Not as far as I'm aware.

texasgun
December 28, 2012, 10:57 PM
if it SHOULD pass and you do not register your AR and use it in a SD scenario or any other case where the cops find it with you.... trust me.... you don't want to be that guy. I assume it will be a felony charge (or at least a severe misdemeanor) and it will wreck ANY background check for good. Trying to find a new job? I doubt your employer is going to like that you violated federal gun laws. Also: forget your CHL/CCW license and be ready to be flagged for any future firearm purchase. IMHO ... absolutely not worth the risk. Plus: what would you do with an unregistered AR? bury it in the backyard? you cannot use it...

willroute
December 28, 2012, 11:12 PM
I was asked on my previous gun purchase whether I was Hispanic? I am not, but funny how more questions are appearing on the forms.

willroute
December 28, 2012, 11:23 PM
How would the US enforce Feinstein's plan?

Through fantasy and wishfull thinking. Until it gets overturned by the Supreme Court. In the end there will be no ban on semi-autos. Read Heller v DC.
And in the meantime, gun prices will skyrocket and we will feel the effects.

2ifbyC
December 28, 2012, 11:26 PM
This discussion is an anachronism. Itís analogous to the Wright brothers discussing the color of the paint of their aircraft before it has ever flown. Your energy should be spent preventing the bill from passing. You will have plenty of time to react IF it passes and in what form.

willroute
December 28, 2012, 11:28 PM
Would be completely naive and unrealistic



They can't. They lack the manpower to do so, especially once you take the total number of "agents" (LEO, Military, ATF, etc) and remove those who refuse on moral grounds and those who refuse because they want to live.



Depends on how you look at at. The constitution says yes, but numerous laws will make you a criminal for doing so. In the end, though, the only part of this question that you really need to ask is how you'll be remembered posthumously.



We already are.
Not to mention number 2 will also violate our Fourth Amendment, but hey, who cares when you can rewrite the constitution when you want.

TwoEyedJack
December 28, 2012, 11:50 PM
A few decades ago the feds shoved wolves down our throats (figuratively). A few years ago, the feds banned Idaho from having a wolf hunting season. After months of unproductive negotiations, Governor Otter got on the radio and announced that he was enjoining any employee of the state of Idaho from enforcing any federal law regarding the Canadian grey wolf. The feds backed down, and we again can hunt wolves.

If this nightmare passes, I believe our governor would again enjoin Idaho state employees from enforcing it. You who live in states with bootlicker governors should consider relocation.

If you enjoyed reading about "How would the US enforce Feinstein's plan?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!