Like a giant tsunami crashing ashore and leaving devastation in its wake, the damage may be done but it can be rebuilt and will take time ... maybe ...
Folks, in my humble opinion, we are facing a huge wave of unbelievable proportion in these times. It was initially thought that the major push for anti-gun legislation would have been at the Federal level with the possibility of reinstatement of another Assault Weapons Ban potentially rivaling that of the 1994 AWB. Instead, what we find is a diminishing federal threat that is being supplanted with a plethora of state and local level laws that are more draconian than what we would have seen at the national level. The effect of these laws, though not yet fully implemented in many cases, nevertheless lays the foundation for court challenges that will take years before they reach the benches and with outcomes uncertain and to be determined. While the US Supreme Court has affirmed the right of US Citizens to keep and bear arms, they have left open the door that there are some limitations that can be imposed.
Some states, such as New Hampshire in 2010, sought to pass a bill that would "exempt firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition manufactured in New Hampshire from federal law and regulation" using the 10th Amendment's limit on the power of the federal government as its foundation. There are other states currently pushing laws that affirm their citizenry's 2nd Amendment rights within state boundaries. While some states have sought to give gun owners more rights, there are many others that have gone the opposite direction.
While current legislative efforts may be uncoordinated and coincidental, the overall assault on our gun rights is, nonetheless, overwhelming. Consider that:
At the Local (City/County/State) level there are proposed or passed laws on:
while Nationally we are facing
And let's not forget the International arena where we have the
Now, while a lot of the measures listed above are not yet law, (well except for a few states,) these proposals, if passed at state level, and coupled with existing laws within the states, present a formidable challenge to the gun owner community.
Some of the worst state offenders include:
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is already on record for stating that it's possible that new gun restrictions could be upheld by the high court, but it's hard to say which specific ones. "It will have to be decided in future cases," "Obviously, the amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried. It's to keep and bear. So, it doesn't apply to cannons. But I suppose there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be (looked at) ... it will have to be decided."
My concern is that the attack has shifted from the national level down to the state and local municipalities where court challenges are going to be difficult and time consuming. If states do indeed have the right to regulate gun rights as a state right, and with the US Supreme Court appearing willing to support new restrictions, we are going to be fighting this battle for a long time. I've stated that, while these efforts may be uncoordinated and coincidental, are they really? Or is this the intent all a long ... have restrictions in place at the state level and let them bubble up over time. And while the challenges wind their way through the court system, they're still in force severely impacting not only us, but the next generation of gun owners in this country.
Someone on this forum made the comment about not being concerned about the present or immediate future, but what about 20-30 years out. I can see that wave coming over the horizon and it sure is looking big.
But what happens if most of the current legislative efforts fail? What happens to the liberal side that is pushing this agenda? Obama has said that the upcoming vote is the best chance in more than a decade to reduce gun violence. Whose wind will be let out of the sails and which way do you think the wind will blow? Will it be us ... or them?
Folks, in my humble opinion, we are facing a huge wave of unbelievable proportion in these times. It was initially thought that the major push for anti-gun legislation would have been at the Federal level with the possibility of reinstatement of another Assault Weapons Ban potentially rivaling that of the 1994 AWB. Instead, what we find is a diminishing federal threat that is being supplanted with a plethora of state and local level laws that are more draconian than what we would have seen at the national level. The effect of these laws, though not yet fully implemented in many cases, nevertheless lays the foundation for court challenges that will take years before they reach the benches and with outcomes uncertain and to be determined. While the US Supreme Court has affirmed the right of US Citizens to keep and bear arms, they have left open the door that there are some limitations that can be imposed.
Some states, such as New Hampshire in 2010, sought to pass a bill that would "exempt firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition manufactured in New Hampshire from federal law and regulation" using the 10th Amendment's limit on the power of the federal government as its foundation. There are other states currently pushing laws that affirm their citizenry's 2nd Amendment rights within state boundaries. While some states have sought to give gun owners more rights, there are many others that have gone the opposite direction.
While current legislative efforts may be uncoordinated and coincidental, the overall assault on our gun rights is, nonetheless, overwhelming. Consider that:
At the Local (City/County/State) level there are proposed or passed laws on:
- Restrictions on high-capacity magazines
- Restrictions or outright ban on semi-automatic military style weapons (AKA "Assault Weapons") that include requirements that a weapon can have only one of several features in order to be banned
- Bills that would limit the sale of semiautomatic rifles to those 21 and older.
- Ammunition being more regulated. A handgun permit or rifle certificate being needed to buy ammunition, or worse, a background check
- Liability Insurance Requirements
- Universal Background Checks
- Requiring fingerprints for handgun licenses.
- "Ammunition eligibility certificate" that imposes immediate universal background checks for all firearms sales
- Registry for magazines
- Confiscation of banned items
while Nationally we are facing
- Magazine Restrictions - prospects are uncertain for a prohibition on large-capacity ammunition magazines
- Semi-automatic military style weapons - not enough votes to approve a ban on assault weapons
- Universal Background Checks - the heart of the Senate gun bill that will expand requirements for federal background checks for gun buyers
And let's not forget the International arena where we have the
- U.N. treaty that will regulate international arms trade. While it will not (supposedly) control the domestic use of weapons in any country, it will require countries to establish national regulations to control arms transfers of conventional weapons ranging from handguns to weapons of war such as missiles and tanks.
Now, while a lot of the measures listed above are not yet law, (well except for a few states,) these proposals, if passed at state level, and coupled with existing laws within the states, present a formidable challenge to the gun owner community.
Some of the worst state offenders include:
- Connecticut - currently poised to have the toughest gun-control laws in the nation
- Colorado - has gone farther than any state outside the northeast in passing new gun laws
- Maryland - whose gun control laws are already among the nation's toughest, is now poised to become one of the first states to pass stricter gun laws in the wake of last year's mass shooting in Newtown.
- New York - with their newly enacted SAFE Act, bans high-capacity magazines and assault-style weapons
- California, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii - states that already have some of the worst laws on the books, are exploring additional restrictions.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is already on record for stating that it's possible that new gun restrictions could be upheld by the high court, but it's hard to say which specific ones. "It will have to be decided in future cases," "Obviously, the amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried. It's to keep and bear. So, it doesn't apply to cannons. But I suppose there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be (looked at) ... it will have to be decided."
My concern is that the attack has shifted from the national level down to the state and local municipalities where court challenges are going to be difficult and time consuming. If states do indeed have the right to regulate gun rights as a state right, and with the US Supreme Court appearing willing to support new restrictions, we are going to be fighting this battle for a long time. I've stated that, while these efforts may be uncoordinated and coincidental, are they really? Or is this the intent all a long ... have restrictions in place at the state level and let them bubble up over time. And while the challenges wind their way through the court system, they're still in force severely impacting not only us, but the next generation of gun owners in this country.
Someone on this forum made the comment about not being concerned about the present or immediate future, but what about 20-30 years out. I can see that wave coming over the horizon and it sure is looking big.
But what happens if most of the current legislative efforts fail? What happens to the liberal side that is pushing this agenda? Obama has said that the upcoming vote is the best chance in more than a decade to reduce gun violence. Whose wind will be let out of the sails and which way do you think the wind will blow? Will it be us ... or them?
