How would the US enforce Feinstein's plan?

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.

That's true, but those groups keep the issue stirred up. The media will keep the thing going until the next story comes along.

Click to expand...

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...

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?

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.

I think the idea behind the plan is that transfers are illegal. In a generation no one will have these firearms.

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.

Deanimator said:

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...

Click to expand...

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.

In a generation no one will have these firearms.

Click to expand...

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.

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

Once you are a "criminal", legal and illegal transfers mean nothing.

Click to expand...

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?

Deanimator said:

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...

Click to expand...

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...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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...

Click to expand...

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."

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.

Martial law

BSA1 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Martial law

Click to expand...

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.

Deanimator said:

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."

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

This.

I mean you and my other THR forumites no ill will and am anti-gun control. Have a nice day.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

That would take years....

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

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.

Suddenly in the face of the anti-gunners assault gun owners what to negotiate a surrender

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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 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.