FOPA of 1986 in danger

Status
Not open for further replies.
Zundfolge : True, but we also have to keep from moving in the less gun rights direction.
The FOPA took the right to bear arms into the gun ban area. Now when you are talking about not going into the less gun rights area are you defending a gun ban to do this?
Gun ban is less gun right.
Zundfolge :Sales of ammo were heavily regulated and registered (IIRC buying ammo mailorder was verboten).
Ah if I recall all an individual had to do was sign for handgun ammo. So you are defending a gun ban so you do not have to sign for handgun ammo.
Zundfolge :The Federal Government had the legal right to register guns and/or gun owners.
What is that form you fill out before you can purchase a firearm from an FFL holder? Not to mention all of the data on that form is entered into the FFL holders bound book. Which the ATF can request to see any time they want.
Zundfolge :No federal protection for those traveling with firearms.
LOL try getting on a airplane with a gun.
Zundfolge :FFLs could be searched at any time for no reason and without a warrant (now they can only be searched once a year).
Great one time a year was worth banning a group of guns. Maybe we should rename the FOPA to the FDPA. Firearms Dealers Protection Act.
 
LOL try getting on a airplane with a gun.

It actually allowed federal pre-emption of interstate transport laws.

Say you're driving from Pennsylvania to Maine with a bunch of machineguns and handguns for a sub-gun and pistol match. You have to pass through New York State, where the former is illegal period and the latter is legal only with a NYS pistol permit. Prior to 1986, you could be stopped, have your weapons sezied, and thrown in jail 25+ years for felony weapons possesion. After the 1986 law, NYSPD may stop you, but legally, you are guaranteed safe passage because you are only passing through NYS.
 
The FOPA took the right to bear arms into the gun ban area. Now when you are talking about not going into the less gun rights area are you defending a gun ban to do this?
The '34 NFA is what took the right to bear arms into the gun ban area, not the FOPA.

Again I'm not defending the MG ban, and again if they do away with the FOPA I can guaren-damn-tee you that the MG ban and Lautenberg Amendment will STILL BE THERE.

Ah if I recall all an individual had to do was sign for handgun ammo. So you are defending a gun ban so you do not have to sign for handgun ammo.
Also, no mailorder of ammo, and simply "sign[ing] for handgun ammo" was a form of gun owner registration.

If that's all anyone is going to do, you're just delaying the inevitable.
Y'all have to get this through your heads THE ANTIS WON THE EFFING ELECTION ... UNTIL THEY ARE VOTED OUT OR DEAD WE WILL NOT GAIN ANY GROUND. NOW IS THE TIME TO CIRCLE THE WAGONS AND DEFEND WHAT WE HAVE, NOT PUSH AHEAD.


If you want to waste effort tilting at windmills than get someone to sponsor a bill eliminating the '34 GCA ... you have a better chance getting Rosie O'Donnel into the finals of the Miss USA pageant.



I don't like the MG ban part of the FOPA, but if you look at the realistic effect of the MG ban vs the benefits of the FOPA you'll see that a significantly greater percentage of gun owners will be negatively effected by no FOPA than no MGs.

If you want to take the "all or nothing" approach to gun laws and insist that just because you believe its your right they should just go a way and leave you alone than you're going to wake up in England and without free exercise of your RKBA.
 
Zundfolge said:
Y'all have to get this through your heads THE ANTIS WON THE EFFING ELECTION ... UNTIL THEY ARE VOTED OUT OR DEAD WE WILL NOT GAIN ANY GROUND. NOW IS THE TIME TO CIRCLE THE WAGONS AND DEFEND WHAT WE HAVE, NOT PUSH AHEAD.

So, when isn't it time to circle the wagons?

Zundfolge said:
If you want to waste effort tilting at windmills than get someone to sponsor a bill eliminating the '34 GCA ... you have a better chance getting Rosie O'Donnel into the finals of the Miss USA pageant.

I don't like the MG ban part of the FOPA, but if you look at the realistic effect of the MG ban vs the benefits of the FOPA you'll see that a significantly greater percentage of gun owners will be negatively effected by no FOPA than no MGs.

If you want to take the "all or nothing" approach to gun laws and insist that just because you believe its your right they should just go a way and leave you alone than you're going to wake up in England and without free exercise of your RKBA.

Who is arguing for an all or nothing approach? By all means, fight back incrementally. But fighting back incrementally is only going to work if, you know, you actually fight back incrementally instead of endlessly surrendering more and more incrementally.
 
The FOPA took the right to bear arms into the gun ban area. Now when you are talking about not going into the less gun rights area are you defending a gun ban to do this?
Gun ban is less gun right.


Wrong... It was the NFA that took the right to bear arms into the gun ban area... The FOPA just amended it...

The GCA 68 also added the "sporting clause" which has lead to many foreign made guns to be banned from import, and laid the groundwork for the AWB 94...

Daniel, I really wish you'd get your story straight...

And besides just because a few dems "want" to roll back these laws, where is the bill that has been introduced to do just that?

Looks like a bunch of chicken littles to me...
 
FOPA 1986 did a number of good things.

The 'machine gun ban' was added at the last minute.

Most folks who complain about the machine gun ban wouldn't get a machinegun anyway if it was repealed.
 
The Hughes Amendment will stay on the books because no gun owners want it repealed.

That's the truth.


This is quoted for truth. LAR has it right.


The NRA hasn't breathed a single word about ever repealing the Hughes Amendment.


Also, for anyone that thinks that the 1986 FOPA can be repealed in its entirety is completely delusional. Remember who the chairs of the committees are. Anti-gun Democrats. That kind of thing will never happen. Not even the GOP would support it. Most gun owners don't care or are oblivious to it entirely.


The only thing that will be repealed is Firearm Owner's Protections...that's it. They want to scale back laws that restrict the JBT's from being JBT's. That simple.



OH, but wait!!!!!! I was told by liberal-democratic pro-gunners on THR that the Democrats would not go for gun control since they are 1] scared to do it in fear of retribution 1994 style 2] the newly elected Democrats are pro-gun conservatives, which means the anti-gun Democrats are still in the minority....
 
Well, just because the leadership proposes things... Doesn't mean that they can actually pass...

There were lots of bills in the past that the R's put forth that didn't have a snowballs chance in hell of passing... But we sat here and got all excited about them anyway...
 
Zundfolge: The '34 NFA is what took the right to bear arms into the gun ban area, not the FOPA.
No guns were banned under NFA . Just regulated to an extreme. The ban came in 86. A tad after the NFA was passed.
Zundfolge: Again I'm not defending the MG ban, and again if they do away with the FOPA I can guaren-damn-tee you that the MG ban and Lautenberg Amendment will STILL BE THERE.
Then feel free to stop telling other right to bear arms people to stop pushing for the bans removal. If you want to compromise your right then do it. But when you compromise your right, you compromise other peoples rights. You then split the right to bear arms people.
Oh and hey we will not even mention how many FFL holders the gun haters take credit for getting rid of.
Zundfolge: Also, no mailorder of ammo, and simply "sign[ing] for handgun ammo" was a form of gun owner registration.
Then the firearms dealers should have fought this in the courts and not give up a class of guns.
Zundfolge: If you want to take the "all or nothing" approach to gun laws and insist that just because you believe its your right they should just go a way and leave you alone than you're going to wake up in England and without free exercise of your RKBA.
Your compromise approach is why we have gun bans in America! I could careless about England they do not have a right like the 2nd amend.
LAR-15 : Most folks who complain about the machine gun ban wouldn't get a machinegun anyway if it was repealed.
Gee and most folks that defend the machine gun ban do not have any either. Is that why they defend the ban? I do not hunt, or carry concealed firearms. Should I defend these firearms activities or push to ban them?
 
well...

...I remember signing for .22LR because it could be used in a handgun...Now, stop and think for a minute what it'd be like to sign for almost every flavor of sub-gun, carbine, what-have-you because of all the one handed cannons that are available NOW!
Thompsen Contender handguns have chambered handguns for virtually every size and flavor of modern ammunition available...

...still want to sign for ammo?

...just a thought...

Z is thinking like a winner on this...We have to stand together and keep up with all the sh*t heading our way...
It's gonna' be splattered like Hershey squirts, and we need to stay mobile, agile, and...you know the rest...:scrutiny:
 
Your compromise approach is why we have gun bans in America! I could careless about England they do not have a right like the 2nd amend.

Boy, you really don't understand... The 2nd Amendment has only been ruled an individual right in a few circuit courts... The rest of the nation either has no decision or a "collective right" decision... Which effectively kills the 2nd amendment...

You cannot win by just standing on your soapbox and screaming 2ND AMENDMENT!!!! people will just ignore you as a nut, and pass new gun laws anyway...
 
gyp_c2 : ...still want to sign for ammo?
Once again since I do not hunt or carry concealed firearms should I as a right to bear arms person defend these gun activities?
I only shoot NFA stuff.
 
If you would bless us with your logic as to why you as such a staunch 2A supporter you don't carry a concealed weapon??? WOW!

I guess you're not much for the Bear part... huh?
 
Ah yes, and I see the gun-grabber/Democrat apologist(s) have entered the building.
There are two solutions; work with the system or work outside the system. If you're not willing to work with the system then how many gun grabbers have you killed lately?

If you're going to call me a traitor or apologist or whatever and point out that I'm clearly wrong then you should be willing to do what needs to be done.

There is either a political solution to this problem (of antis) or there is a military one ... but thumping your chest and chanting "...from my cold dead hand!" isn't going to get the laws changed in our favor. You're NEVER going to wake up one morning and all the anti-gun, anti-freedom bovine scat that has been put into place over the last 200+ years will have just disappeared. You're not going to run into Chuck Schumer at a gun show and he's going to say "Ya know, you gun guys were right all along ... I'm sorry about all the trouble ... how about a box of .45acp and some venison jerky on me!"

Or are you just one of those RKBA folk that believes that just by force of will that those who oppose our rights will just give up and leave us alone.

There's right, wrong and effective and just because you're right doesn't make you effective.

Either start trying to do something actually useful for RKBA or put your money where your mouth is and start feeding the hogs.
 
The problem is quite simply, we lose when we play defense. The best strategy is to go on the offensive, force the antis to defend their inane ideas, paint them as the bad guys (because regardless of their purported intents, they are tyrants and deserve all the humiliation that can be served up to them).

To quote some amusing song lyrics I've heard of late,

"What do you mean retreat? We gotta retaliate!"
 
Anti gun politicians could be rendered impotent if the major manufacturers would deny guns that are illegal for citizens to own to law enforcement.

No more LE destructive devices - flash bangs, street sweepers, etc.
No more LE machine guns - DOD / US Military sales only

Sell them only the guns and magazines that are legal for citizens to own.
Of course, in DC, that would be nothing, but that's their problem.

There are still plenty of firearm friendly legislators in congress. If you want FOPA enhanced, stop whining about it here and whine about it to your elected folks along with a few dozen friends. Plenty of laws have been passed in the history of the republic that "never had a chance".
 
hmmm...

...
Once again since I do not hunt or carry concealed firearms should I as a right to bear arms person defend these gun activities?
I only shoot NFA stuff.
...I remember quite well 200. automatic weapons...I didn't vote for the '86 ban and I still think we should ALL be able to afford and feed our personal, non-registered, antiviolenceemergencyrescuetools...

...whether they be hand-held, tri-mount, or tracked...

We STILL need to fight together in the most effective way...The gun-haters are not me...If something works, why not utilize it...It should be obvious what works...They have been coming after ALL of the toys incrementally...we have to do unto others to be successful. If " all or nothing " was effective, then we wouldn't be trying to get a consensus now, it'd be over already...The truth is we haven't pulled together in the past as effectively as the gun-haters have. We had the right on our side, but they were smart and they just keep coming. I agree that it's much better to be on the offense, but we have to be just as focused and relentless as our enemies have been...
Hell, I'm still furious about the '68 knee-jerk that followed Kennedys' death...Magazine ads for all the old surplus toys were what I took to bed with my milk and cookies. Carbines and Garands, M2s and Grease guns...and plenty of ammo...cheap...all ended 3 years befrore I was 18...Poof, no mail sales...
I am all for getting rid of the whole sorry lot of horsesh*t reg schemes...
...taxes...bans, et al...:scrutiny:
 
In 1985 you could still file the pape work to make and register a machinegun. So I wouldn't mind that trade since I'm not an FFL
Of course it would be possible for some jurisdictions to make it a pain or legally impossible to transverse while engaged in interstate commerce. Yeah, giving up peaceable interstate transport for a new machine gun, which is more of a novelty than anything else for most users, is a great tradoff. :scrutiny: :scrutiny:

I have no problem with machine guns, believe me, I would love to see them cheap and available again- but what you give is more valeuable.
 
THE ANTIS WON THE EFFING ELECTION ... UNTIL THEY ARE VOTED OUT OR DEAD WE WILL NOT GAIN ANY GROUND. NOW IS THE TIME TO CIRCLE THE WAGONS AND DEFEND WHAT WE HAVE, NOT PUSH AHEAD.
Funny, we voted them out in '94, and didn't get much. Only now, TWELVE years later, do we have a bill that protects the manufacturers. There are a few in Congress that have REPEATEDLY proposed the offense you proposed, and it went NOWHERE. I'm not going to list them, becuase there are far too many to mess with(though I suppose someone has a list of the critters besides Ron Paul that have done so), but they happened, and went nowhere.

If we weren't pushing ahead then, we're not going to now. And voting R/D in '08 isn't going to help much.
 
Great strategy Gifted, I applaud your positive spirit and vision for the future. :rolleyes:



Zunfold, I'm not quite sure where I offended you. For starters, I belong to pro-RKBA organizations, I vote, and I write letters. More importantly, I've taken more of my fair share of anti-gun libs/moderates to the range and that has ERASED their entire negative image of it.

I was speaking from the perspective that now that the Democrats are in power, you can absolutely positively forget about any pro-gun progress, no matter how little it may be. Also, you can forget about maintaining the status quo.

It is obvious that many people aren't happy with the GOP since not a lot got done. That's actually a good value. It is good to demand progress. But, like you, I am a realist, and no I don't think I will ever wake up and see the gun grabbers have disappeared, nor am I a chest thumper who wants to kill them all in the streets. So those comments aren't accurate at all.

There's another thing to consider though. GOP rule of the Congress, if not to repeal bans, was extremely, extremely positive for us in that it maintained the status quo of no new bans.

Why is that good? Because it buys us time. It buys us time to spread the word and grow the gun culture without interference of bans. Look at the sheer number of people who have bought AR's and AK's and 30rd magazines since? These are all new people who will not like to be told that they can no longer buy or have 30rd magazines.

With Democrats in power, the AWB would have been renewed (to use it as an example) and such magazines would not be around as they were getting very scarce in 2003-2004.

So, the actual physical availability of firearms and magazines in the market place has a direct and positive impact on the growth and size of the gun culture.

It is no secret that attacks on hunting, licensing, hunting lands being taken away and all this has limited the amount of people interested in that sport. Likewise, when you make entire classes of firearms extinct, you limit entire disciplines of shooting and entire sports and activities. People like convenience and ease. When something is a pain in the butt to get, they just skip it. People won't go to a restaurant that is on the left side of the street because they have to make a left turn and wait at the light. That's the psychology in play with the very casual moderate middle of the road, non-serious gun owners that can EASILY become allies. Instead, small bits of gun control make it a hassle for them and they give up.

So it was ok to have the GOP blocking gun control. It did lead to positive things.


If someone believes that the 1986 ban or any ban earlier than that is going to be repealed without a CULTURAL change in America with regards to firearms, then they are simply delusional.


So, how do we enact cultural change? By making it more acceptable. How do you do that? BY PROLIFERATING FIREARMS like AR's and such so that more people go shoot highpower or want an AR for home defense. More and more it is seen as "ok" and when that is seen as ok, we can chip away at registered machine guns, or sporting purposes clause etc....


How do we ensure that we can proliferate firearms? By putting a halt to new bans. How do we put a halt to new bans? By supporting the GOP, not the Democrats.


It is a simple equation. The GOP did not stab us in the back, nor did they sell out. They did exactly what they said they would. They never promised to go in there and bring America back to pre-1934 gun laws. They said they'd defend the RKBA which means from new attacks.



That's being realistic. The gun grabbers did not seize political power through organizations like the Brady Camp, they hijacked education and media...and enacted CULTURAL change that was sympathetic to gun control.



What do you think?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top