The Future of Attacks for Anti-Gunners - go after gunshops and the gun companies?

Status
Not open for further replies.
U

usmarine0352_2005

member
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
2,796
The anti-gunners have had a good year so far. With courts upholding ridiculously unconstitutional laws such as the SAFE Act in NY and the Conneticut gun laws banning magazines and black rifles they are on a good run.

While they are winning in the courts they have also found two other ways to win that are a new starting point for them. Through excessive regulations of gunshops and frivolous lawsuits.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) was supposed to stop the latter but with the recent win against Badger Guns in Wisconsin anti-gunners and their lawyers have a boost of confidence and see a chance to win.

With gun shops the anti's can over-regulate them so much that gun shops are forced to close or cannot open or they cannot afford to meet all of the regulations. Sure the gun shop can take the city, county, whatnot to court over it but that takes time and lots of money. And the money is most likely not there for a gun shop or gun manufacturer to fight a lengthy legal battle(s). Recently San Francisco's last gun shop just closed because of their new regulations. One being that each transaction had to be recorded. A lot of customers did not want to be recorded.


So, with these two types of attacks which are easier for cities, counties, and states to fight with taxpayer money and gun shops and gun manufactures having limited funds, is this the new battleground and line of attack?


Because it seems to be working well so far. We may be at a tipping point, even Hilary Clinton is pushing gun control, something that Al Gore said caused him the presidential election.
 
Last edited:
Badger guns was a problem dealer. Where I live the local gun shop got huge tax breaks to expand. This is in Chicagos NW suburbs. Don't panic yet. Bad dealers are not prptected by the law you speak of. You need to read it.
 
Badger guns was a problem dealer.
Click to expand...

YES, I live in the area and they skirted the law for years passing the business from family member to family member right before the ATF took action against them. They were well known for shady business practices as far as FFL regulation go. The law suit had nothing to do with gun control. It had to do with two disabled police officers.
 
I wouldn't say the Anti's have had a good year at all. Sure they won a bit in the NE where it was fully expected and of course shouldn't have happened. But they have pretty much lost everywhere else and have even taken several steps backwards in most places.
CA doesn't count that place is so far gone it's never coming back.
 
I don't think the "anti-s" have made much progress at all in recent years - but you can bet they'll keep on trying....

As far as these kinds of "true believers" go... it's anything and everything -all the time as far as what they'll try to accomplish by fair means or foul. That obligates us (and everyone else who cares about our basic liberties) to stay vigilant and oppose them at every opportunity... consider it a form of pest control....
 
IMO, the biggest anti win was the background check law in Oregon. However, I don't know what effect that will have in reality as law enforcement doesn't seem to want to touch it. We will know more once they try to prosecute someone. The present danger is the Bloomberg cronies are trying to get the same legislation passed in a few others states. Overall, I think that is the biggest threat. The money Bloomberg and others are dumping into targeted states is substantial. On the other hand, most of the legislation they are pushing, while certainly anti-gun, is generally poorly done and seems to piss more people off than it pleases. That might be a benefit in the future.

Another might be if the Supreme Court decides to take one of the gun cases, but even if they do, the results won't be known for some time.

The main threat to me is that the Republican nominee might end up being someone who is weak on gun rights. The right person could talk about the issue and encourage Democrats to continue talking about gun control deep into the Presidential election which would help motivate pro-gun voters to vote. The wrong person might end up doing the opposite.
 
Back to the other topics of the OP.


What do you think about the anti's new approach of excessive regulation of gun shops and sueing gunshops and manufacturers?
 
This is my own non-lawyer opinion, but I think a lot will hinge on the outcome of Friedman v. City of Highland Park at SCOTUS. To me it looks like a case that is ripe for being summarily overturned based on the Macdonald and Heller decisions, but that's just me. If that style of "assault weapon"/"high-cap" magazine ban is unconstitutional, some more left-leaning states and localities will be looking for other "common sense" gun-grabb... er.. gun-control measures. The power to tax is the power to destroy and I see some of these places wanting to, again, add confiscatory taxes on guns and ammunition if the outright bans are declared unconstitutional. And not just a sales tax, but a registration/possession tax due each year that matches or exceeds the value of the gun.

The Badger guns case is a non-issue in relation to the PLCAA because they were ignoring the "Legal" part of the Protection of Legal Commerce in Arms Act. They were knowingly and provably breaking the law.

Matt
 
Morcey2, that's a good point. They are going to start hitting the tax issue on guns and ammo hard too whether or not we win Friedman I believe.
 
Alas, laws “imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms” are expressly supported in the Heller decision, which is turning out to be not quite the godsend that some folks initially believed it to be.

This will prove to be the Achilles' heel in the struggle to preserve the right of the people to keep and bear arms in an un-infringed manner.

Heller affords our adversaries far too much wiggle room to maintain and expand all their Mickey Mouse regulations and restrictions that smell of contempt for the Second Amendment, and are enacted with a view to deter, dissuade, and inhibit ownership of anything deemed objectionable.
 
I do agree that a hideous ammo tax is in the realm of possibility. However, politicians are probably too ignorant to include reloading components in that, lol.
 
Anyone that's looked at Badger seriously or bothered to review the thread on the case in Legal wouldn't consider it to be anything other than encouragement for Antis that don't understand that Badger wasn't covered under PLCAA for their wanton sale to a straw purchaser (caught on store videotape). The law still stands for shops following the law.

We can expect suits to be filed when the shops have any glaring straw purchase or other malfeasance negligence in selling a firearm used in a crime.

That said, the NRA and other pro-2A entities will need to build legal defense funds (or the individual businesses will need crowdfunding assistance) to help file when low merit lawsuits are filed so they can be thrown out.
 
Last edited:
I fully expect more states and localities like Seattle to add a separate sales tax for guns and ammunition. Governments love to tax and they're fully within their right to do so however, I don't think this will be an issue in free states. The Northeast and Left Coast, yes, they're going to be dealing with these threats for decades, but most state reps, even the bluest ones, don't like raising taxes during an election year.

As for gun shops and manufacturer's, the manufacturer's have armies of lawyers and the NRA, they will be fine. Gun shops, with the rise of the internet, I predict a lot of gun shops will close eventually and be replaced by garage FFL dealers.
 
The gun shop in Colorado got the lawsuit dismissed and was able to get a judgement for its legal expenses. I think that is a more likely precedent in most states, not the Badger Guns settlement. However, I am sure there are judges in some locations who will make it difficult to get that judgement.

Remember that we have been through this already with New York trying to sue a bunch of gun shops a few years back. They succeeded in a few cases, but failed in others. It didn't end all gun shops. I think that prediction is incorrect.
 
The next battleground will be lead ammo and lead bullets in firing ranges. They'll insist on cleaning out the berms until the dirt is food quality. This will cost so much the ranges will have to close. It's already happening in CA.

The club reported profits of $66,623 in 2012 and $18,232 in 2013 but suffered a net loss of $121,479 in 2014. Last year’s loss was linked to higher costs for environmental compliance, insurance and record keeping, according to a park report.

Sutter said the range serves a valuable function, but tougher environmental rules have put the gun range in a financial bind.
http://www.crpa.org/update-chabot-gun-club-debate-turnout/
Click to expand...
 
Cook county put a 25.00 per gun sales tax in a few years back. Now a nickel a round for center fire and a penny per round for rim fire. I bet it sticks if passed.

In the last 2 years Illinois has passed shall issue and opened up the door to NFA items,SBR's. We have
the FOID card and UBC and none of this has hampered my gun activities in the 43 years I've been involved.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

U
  • Locked
Have the anti-gunners already won?
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
161
Views
7K
Robert
Robert
U
  • Locked
Lyons OKs 'unprecedented' gun shop regulations
Replies
15
Views
1K
ewlyon
E
U
  • Locked
Anti-gunners buying stock in companies that sell guns, then forcing stoppage of sales
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
buck460XVR
buck460XVR
General Geoff
  • Locked
using machine guns as a point of leverage against antis in disguise.
2 3 4
Replies
85
Views
2K
Jefferson Herb
J
F
  • Locked
Nice shot! Court kills NYC gun law
Replies
17
Views
2K
S4Lee
S
Back
Top