Gun Ban

[jfh]

This topic brings a few issues to the front.

The first is that currently accepted conventional wisdom is that

1. We will have a Democrat Party control of both houses of Congress and a Democrat President. As a result, a new Gun Ban bill is a certainty.

I wouldn't count on that just yet. Those of us old enough to remember the 1968 Democrat Convention in Chicago see the seeds for that kind of failure. Personally, I think the "power group" structures in place will prevent that--but it can't be counted out.

And, if one considers the two probable candidates / one of whom will be elected--I am not so sure McCain cannot win. (I like him about as much as I like Hilary, but he offsets the power and control from Congress.)

Personally, I bet on no "ban" bill--but a "gunshow loophole" is probably a certainty. The trouble is, for it to have any real teeth in it is virtually impossible, given the 2nd Amendment incorporation issues, and the pending Heller decision.

2. While I will never dismiss the capability of politicians to overreach when they have a mandate, it does appear that the Democrat Party so far may have actually learned the political lesson of the 1994 AWB.

It is important to understand that even if they were to pass a new ban, it will not be exhaustive. The so-called "loopholes" of the '94 AWB were carefully planned. The only way all loopholes would be closed would be if they overreach.

3. There have been fundamental changes in the public values about self-defense--both personally and as public policy: For the latter, we have 9/11 to thank. On a personal level--other than in isolated enclaves, we are winning the public discussions of a right to self defense, with firearms.

The "assault weapons" myth and political definition is the only one that stuck--and that is the pro-gun group's fault as much as the antigunner's success.

There is now a twenty-year success record for citizen carry. Again, it is only in isolated enclaves that it remains an issue. It is this success--when the non-active voter (the sheeple, as it were) knows this more, it will return to being a non-issue, as long as there is not widespread abuse by carriers. That citizen carry success is responsible for advancing firearms back into the public consciousness in a way that no hunter or marksman has been able to do during this time.

Now, I grant you, it is fun for people of like mind and perspective to get together and hand-wring--but it isn't necessary. IMO.

Jim H.

 

[antsi]

it does appear that the Democrat Party so far may have actually learned the political lesson of the 1994 AWB.

Sure, but the question remains what lesson is that?

The lesson we would like for them to have absorbed was "give up on gun control forever." That is not consistent with what the candidates are saying, however. Both Clinton and Obama have voiced support for a new AWB.

I think the lesson they learned is something more along the lines of "don't talk about your gun control agenda too much, and when you do talk about it, use carefully crafted statements that disguise your real intent."

Or, more simply, "keep it under wraps until after the election."

 

[Just Jim]

While I share no faith in politicions to do the right thing I have noticed they have been making adjustments. Seems they are all taking viagra now because it makes them all taller and allows them to sit up straight in a meeting for four hours.

You can't trust them. Buy while you can.

jj

 

[lanternlad1]

The Dems will wait until after the Heller decision to see which way the SCOTUS winds are blowing. After all, why go through the trouble of banning everything if the courts seem likely to overturn it? Also, the '94 AWB could be in place right now if thats what Congress really wanted. Bush said that he would have signed an extension to it if it came across his desk. It didn't.

The ban as it is currently written is in committee. From there, it has to go to the floor of the House, where the lawyers will look at it for viability (which it doesn't currently have) and edit it down to something that might actually pass. That's how negotiations work - ask for the moon, and you might get what you want when it is all said and done. If this bill comes up for vote by itself, it has NO chance of passing. The 94 AWB had no chance of passing by itself either, thats why it was included in the Crime Bill. What we need is for a friendly Senator to tack on an unpopular bill to this AWB if it ever comes up for vote - say like sending money to Al Qaeda.

Never underestimate the power of the poison pill.

 

[I LIKE IT!]

I've spent the past 26 months paying off my dream gun(NFA PP-RR MP5) that
I seriously doubt I'll have much time let alone money to buy all the other EBRs I have on my wishlist.

I'm currently working on finishing 4 NFA transfers then maybe I'll buy more mags and a few title 1 EBRs.

Tic-Toc-Tic-Toc

 

[jfh]

I agree, antsi--we don't know for sure what lesson they've learned, yet.

From my POV, all politics is relative, and all policy decision is driven by the need to stay in power. That's why they won't learn to give up "forever"--they will always be driven by what they perceive to be the current 'climate' (the public's current opinion). So, if a perceived 'majority' public can be driven to a current opinion that supports outright bans, they will do it.

You and I both seem to remember the "camel's nose is under the tent" triumphalism as the gun grabbers revealed new proposed legislation within a week of '94 passage--I know I'll never forget it: Metzenbaum, et.al., with ammunition taxes, reloading components taxes and bans, "hazmat" fees, "armory registration," and on and on....That woke up the Fuds and the gun crowd in general. Fourteen years later, the gun crowd is much more organized (though still fragmented)--I'll bet Zumbo's fall was well noted--and the SD value is firmly planted.

Personally, I share your belief that they may be operating on the "keep it under wraps" perspective. Contrast that with the supposition that they did learn was that overreaching is a sure way to loss of power. I'd like to believe that the values of political pragmatism for the need to stay in power will override the Democrat's fascist desires.

If Osama Obama prevails, however--all bets are off: the hysteria of the hope-and-naievete crowd may well hold sway, and politicians will think the majority of the public is being driven by the "hope" metaphor. That kind of thinking always allows all sorts of absolutism to crop up.

Then the cycle will start again.

Have you read "it's a bad day to be a mallard" yet? That's a good summary of the current problems for the Democrat Party on the gun control topic.

Jim H.

 

[Javelin]

Both Clinton and Obama have voiced support for a new AWB.

Exactly. Both of these degenerates have expressed a real need for an AWB as both being supported directly and indirectly through the Brady Campaign. I am not recommending you visit their site I am just stating what I have seen there.

The NRA needs legislative help. If you are a gun owner and not a member of the NRA shame on you. If you are not an NRA member and stock piling to make a buck on a looming AWB may God have mercy on your soul for your selling out Constitutional Ammendments for your own personal gain. Is there even room in Hell for this type of activity?

 

[lanternlad1]

"If you are a gun owner and not a member of the NRA shame on you."

That's me. You don't like it? Tough.

May I call your attention to the NRA/Hutchison bill designed to give gun rights to D.C. citizens and undercut the Heller case? The NRA only jumped on the bandwagon AFTER the bill showed no signs of going anywhere. Thats when I stopped supporting them. This showed me that the NRA is no better than the Bradys - it all comes down to money. The NRA wants it to fight for gun rights, the Bradys want it to fight against them. To blindly follow any cause and attempt to bully those who don't see as you do makes you no better than a Democrat.

This is still America. We still have to think for ourselves.

 

[esq_stu]

high cap mags for any gun I have that takes 'em
high cap mags for one or two guns on my saving-up-for list
at least one spare stripped AR receiver

 

[Neo-Luddite]

jfh--very thoughtful and reasoned responses. We do tend to get mired down when we constantly gaggle at one another about how the sky is about to fall.

I've been thinking about adding some more 'hedge' weapons and decided instead it was FAR more important to buy a little Cricket .22 w/ a pink stock for my oldest daughter's birthday so she can get started with a simple rifle that will both fit her and be 'hers' entirely.

 

[Run&Shoot]

I don't think anyone on this board has ever suggested that another ban is absolutely going to happen. It is a risk assessment we each have to make. Just because none of my houses have burned in the last 30 years, and I see no reason they should in the future, doesn't mean I will be canceling my homeowners insurance. With three gun ban friendly top candidates I think the risk of a ban has gone up a notch.

Even if you think the risk is low, buying something that would be at risk reinforces the overall sales numbers which is eventually what every politician is going to look at before they make a decision. If "evil assault weapon" paraphernalia sales drop off then some politico may get the idea it is safe to start in on gun bans again. If they see growth in those sales year after year they will be reminded that it is not a good idea.

Just because something is unlikely to happen this year is not necessarily a good reason NOT to take some "risk management" action now. Buying some "evil assault" items will not hurt a darn thing and it might help personally as well as nationally. Where's the down side to this?

Buy early and buy often folks! If only we could get the dead to buy,too, like they vote in Chicago!

 

[Rachen]

"keep it under wraps until after the election."

I think thats what they are trying to do. They are predators. They will use all sorts of tactics to lure their prey into their cave, then pounce on them.

 

[TexasRifleman]

May I call your attention to the NRA/Hutchison bill designed to give gun rights to D.C. citizens and undercut the Heller case? The NRA only jumped on the bandwagon AFTER the bill showed no signs of going anywhere.

You will notice that today the Supreme Court denied the Texas SG's request to present oral arguments on this but allowed the Federal SG 15 minutes to present his brief. You will also notice that the Federal brief is NOT exactly friendly towards our side.

If we lose Heller what will you say about the NRA then?

It's this kind of thing that NRA wanted to avoid by this case going to the Supremes, this is BY NO MEANS a slam dunk. NRA looked at other alternatives to a potentially devastating Supreme Court case, and you're pissed? If we lose what will you think then? Would you have thought Kelo would have gone the way it did?

Are YOU happy that the future of your Second Amendment rights potentially hangs in the hands of a single law firm over a single plaintiff Heller?

I'm not happy or comfortable with it at all. I guess we'll know one way or another here in a few weeks.

Heller has the potential to go against us in a BIG way.

 

[Run&Shoot]

If we are scared to have the 2nd Amendment ruled on and prefer fighting incremental battles every year then we are in a sad state. Doesn't that kind of indicate we lost already? Why have a right declared if we are too afraid to have it put to use?

If we lose Heller then at least we will know the line has been truly crossed.

 

[TexasRifleman]

If we are scared to have the 2nd Amendment ruled on and prefer fighting incremental battles every year then we are in a sad state. Doesn't that kind of indicate we lost already?

That's not the question, the question is whether or not Heller is the right case to take a stand on. Many believe it is not.

We'll know soon enough one way or the other.

If you believe even a Heller win will not still take incremental battles every year then you are naive.

This case can do sweeping damage to the 2A cause, or it can move things incrementally forward.

It can't be a sweeping win for the Second because it's such a narrowly focused question.

If the Supremes rule that the Second is NOT an individual right, game over.

If the Supremes rule that the Second is an individual right, but subject to just about as much regulation as the Solicitor General has asked for, what progress has been made in reality?

Best case is the lower court is upheld anyway and we have the Supremes on record that the Second is an individual right subject to "restrictions" with no definition at all of what those might be. That's the "win" we get from Heller.

Do you really believe they are going to flat out say that the Second Amendment should be subject to no restrictions whatsoever?

So even if we win Heller, then there has to be the next "perfect storm" case. This one would require a case where a state has very restrictive 2A laws, Illinois or Jersey for example. Someone has to be found to have standing to then ask the Supremes WHERE these reasonable restrictions are. How long will that one take? This is going to be a VERY long fight, all hinging on Heller.

If Heller was the wrong starting point, well again it doesn't matter now, it's already started and so now everyone is on board 100%.

It's just funny that you fault the NRA and other groups for considering the possibility that Heller was NOT the perfect case to start with.

You really really have to read something other than GOA press releases every once in a while to see the big picture.