AWB '94 vs VA 2020

[LiveLife]

we have a social contract, which is our constitution, which enumerates some of our rights and leaves others unenumerated.

when the gov violates those rights, and by extent our breaks our contract, then we no longer have any moral obligation to follow the laws of a tyrannical government.

All law enforcement officers take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and so do all the law makers.

So when LEO violates someone's constitutional rights, their actions are reversed and situation corrected. Well, when law makers violate our constitutional rights by writing unconstitutional laws, we take them to court and get their unconstitutional laws reversed and new laws written to correct the unconstitutional laws.

I am sure DC laws have been rewritten after the Heller case - https://wamu.org/story/18/06/26/different-d-c-s-gun-laws-look-10-years-supreme-courts-heller-ruling/

But the antis keep trying and we have Heller II and Heller III which also pointed out the unconstitutionality and more laws got rewritten.

 

[taliv]

Loyalist Tories might have said the same thing in the late 1700s, roughly 550 years after the magma carta. Citizens in nyc and dc still have a fraction of their 2a rights despite heller etc.

 

[LiveLife]

Citizens in nyc and dc still have a fraction of their 2a rights despite heller etc.

By our actions, we honor the original intent of the founders.

"We the People" still have our day in court with the US Supreme Court.

As justice Gorsuch stated, "We the People can do this ... We can govern ourselves ... I want an enduring Constitution and the idea of originalism is just simply that judges should follow the original meaning of the words on the page. And, neither add things that aren't there nor take away things that are there." https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...on-the-second-amendment.856201/#post-11324026

I do not believe "We the People" have finally spoke and I wait on the Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment's "modern" application.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

AlexanderA is off the rails. I hope that's not too un HR.

The thing to be aware of is apparently there are "gun owners" that think like this and he's probably not the only one.

This is absolutely not ever NEVER what we need to aid in our cause of upholding our rights and constitution.


Its inevitable where we'll end up at if enough folks take his stance, and it's not where anyone wants to be.

 

[LiveLife]

Regardless, NOW is the time for all gun owners to set aside our differences because if we do not act in one accord, we'll face losing more of our gun rights.

It's time for all gun owners to look in the mirror and ask whether we will support gun rights/2A or not.

You are either supporter of gun rights/2A or anti gun rights/2A.

There is no longer anything in between.

It's like World War II, you were either for Axis powers or for Allies. And in similar fashion, gun owners of all walks of life can come together and join forces to fight the antis with the backing of the Supreme Court (I hope)

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

There is no longer anything in between.

Unfortunately some folks disagree and that is why we will never be completely united.

Nevertheless I believe there are enough of a majority of gun owning Patriots that think like you and I do to instill hope in the cause.

But there are certainly lost causes and its prudent not to expel energy or time on those.

 

[LiveLife]

I think some gun owners bought the argument that they didn't need the "black evil assault rifle" and supported the AWB.

But now with proliferation of AR type pistol caliber carbines that carry larger 30-33 round capacity magazines more suitable for home defense over pistols with 15-17 round magazines, everyone I introduced to shooting/defensive training (even those lifelong Democrat voting gun owners who supported AWB) now see the benefit of these firearms and do not want them banned.

And as antis have shown their hands (they actually told us), their ultimate end game is gun ban/confiscation.

As stated by Supreme Court justices and federal judges, it does not matter whether the firearm is modern versions with improved technology taking magazines, restriction/ban on firearms is restriction/ban on Second Amendment just as restriction/ban on any modern forms of communication is restriction/ban on the First Amendment.

 

[AlexanderA]

What are "rights," exactly? In every case, they are concessions wrested from autocratic rulers by their rebellious subjects. No ruler ever granted rights voluntarily. No all-powerful deity granted them from on high. In fact, the only "law of nature" is the law of the jungle, where the strong eat the weak. The gazelle has the "right" to defend itself from the lion, but ends up getting eaten anyway.

The Bill of Rights merely codified the consensus among Americans in 1791. The continued application of the BOR depends on that consensus being maintained, and the Supreme Court jurisprudence ultimately reflects that consensus. If we expect the Supreme Court to get too far out of line with public opinion, we are deluding ourselves. Chief Justice Roberts knows this, and that's why he treads carefully.

If we want to keep our gun rights, we have to convince the public to support us. There's no way around this. We can neither depend on antidemocratic institutions, nor on divine intervention.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

What are "rights," exactly? In every case, they are concessions wrested from autocratic rulers by their rebellious subjects. No ruler ever granted rights voluntarily. No all-powerful deity granted them from on high. In fact, the only "law of nature" is the law of the jungle, where the strong eat the weak. The gazelle has the "right" to defend itself from the lion, but ends up getting eaten anyway.

The Bill of Rights merely codified the consensus among Americans in 1791. The continued application of the BOR depends on that consensus being maintained, and the Supreme Court jurisprudence ultimately reflects that consensus. If we expect the Supreme Court to get too far out of line with public opinion, we are deluding ourselves. Chief Justice Roberts knows this, and that's why he treads carefully.

If we want to keep our gun rights, we have to convince the public to support us. There's no way around this. We can neither depend on antidemocratic institutions, nor on divine intervention.

 

[LiveLife]

What are "rights," exactly?

Same rights as voting rights for women and blacks and minorities as ensured by the Bill of Rights.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

If we want to keep our gun rights, we have to convince the public to support us. There's no way around this. We can neither depend on antidemocratic institutions, nor on divine intervention.

Theres no obligation to sway those that oppose the grounds on which this country was founded. THATS the whole reason the majority dont get to obliterate the rights of the few, regardless of which side is in power.

And you're right that ultimately institutions or divine intervention aren't needed, there is always that last option that is ALWAYS on the table, even though it's what nobody wants. It IS there.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

Retracted.

Merry Christmas one and all.

 

[LiveLife]

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas!

Wishing the best in 2020 for gun owners' rights.

 

[AlexanderA]

Same rights as voting rights for women and blacks and minorities as ensured by the Bill of Rights.

Those voting rights are secured by the 19th and 15th Amendments, respectively. Don't forget the 26th Amendment, that gave 18-year-olds the vote. Not part of the original Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments).

Just goes to show that "rights" are an evolving thing. They can be added, and they can be taken away. Nothing "God-given" or immutable about them. As I said, every single right that we have depends ultimately on public consensus. Our only recourse is to "evangelize" our neighbors regarding guns.

 

[LiveLife]

Just goes to show that "rights" are an evolving thing. They can be added, and they can be taken away.

Sure, by constitutional amendments.

But taking away rights by unconstitutional county ordinance to unconstitutional state laws, no.

 

[illinoisburt]

We saw that already when the Hearing Protection Act and national carry reciprocity went nowhere, even though we theoretically had control of both houses of Congress as well as the presidency.

You are making the false assumption the politicians of the republican party wanted the legislation. It is very common to propose and vote on legislation which is popular with base groups when there is no possibility for the law to be passed. You see this from both parties at all levels of government and is the reason your representative is being honest when she says "I was for it before I was against it." Bills are introduced.every day which no one, including the authors, actually intends to be passed. When the opportunity for passage does arrive, the bill is either retracted or simply gets tabled to death avoiding a meaningful vote. It's all about making an appearance of effort or support for a cause while never intending to follow through.

 

[CapnMac]

The Fed AWB only covered 19 specific arms by name, and used a "three feature" identification rule, and had extensive "grandfathering" of exisitng and previously-owned property.

VA's SB-16 is a "one feature" ban, which makes it virtually all semi-automatics, and has no "grandfathering" at all. And there's no rimfire exemption at all. (All of which might change in legislative session; but none of the player has indicated any intetion of watering the thing down.)

The bills are significantly different--despite the bleating of the compliant press to the contrary.

So, in 1994, if you were "in before the ban" you were good. After that, as long as you only had two "evil" features, you were still good. (Why we saw the "thumbhole" stocks and sawn-off bayonet lugs, and welded-on muzzle bits; those were all to reduce the "feature" count.) The antis paid attention, and were sore offended that we all "ignored" their ban, and found the ways around it they had left in the legislation. SB-16 has "teeth" and offers nothing in return. It's literally written as a a "lose it or use it" law. More than some passing debate, as it uses the new "assault firearms" language over whether it applies to handguns as well, or only long arms.

 

[748]

So I didn't know where to ask this so I'll try here. I won't be surprised if it gets merged into somewhere else.

In thinking about the many comments here (and I don't even want to think about what's going on over at AR.com) that seem to allude to an inevitability of violence regarding the current events in Virginia, I have to ask was this an issue in 1994 with the federal Assault Weapons Ban? If not (I seem to think it was not), then what has changed? Why is the thought so prevalent now? Why wasn't this thought so prevalent when California and other states introduced gun restrictions? (I don't recall anyone ready to storm the Winter Palace over the bullet button a few years back.)

Now I was a young man in 1994, having just voted in my first election in '92, but I was politically aware, read American Rifleman and most of the other gun magazines of the time, wrote my elected officials, wrote letters to the editor, etc., and spent a lot of time at the range listening to other gun owners' rants, and, to be honest, I just don't recall anyone saying or writing anything about a violent, armed resistance to the '94 AWB.

I was aware that "militias" existed because I would see them recruiting at gun shows, but they always appeared connected to fringe movements or people, such as Timothy McVeigh or the Branch Davidians. They didn't have the air of legitimacy in the gun world at that time-at least not to my observation and recollection.

Prior to the '94 AWB, I didn't know a single person, outside DCM Service Rifle circles, who owned an AR15. I didn't know anyone who owned an AK, and I never saw either of them at the range (again, other than at a DCM match).

So I don't know what has changed in 25 years, other than now everyone and his brother owns an AR, to help turn this issue into a flash point for armed, civil insurrection.

Yeah the militias were very fringy.
I don't think any one expected or advocated violence, at least not publicly.
Evil "assault rifles" were really rare. Every now and then you would see a $100 surplus store sks with a fixed mag using stripper clips.
NFA items were about as rare as ARs.
Now ARs are everywhere and silencers aren't anything special.

 

[BSA1]

“Go to a national popular vote.”

Alexander A sitting through all of the chaff you have posted your core belief is you want Hillary as your President.

Calling for the complete destruction of the United States...the breakup of large states, creation of city states, eliminating the power of the Senate, etc...is a Liberals dream come through.

You frightened me and you and your legions of fellow Liberals are exactly why ownership of firearms should be unregulated.

 

[Robert]

Too much politics...