If no Grandfather Clause. Are you giving up your AK/ARs?

[K3]

If I may

The 94 ban allowed for grandfathering but it was still the most extensive ban in our history, it didn't work

By all accounts the desired effects were minimal at best

The forward thinking socialist will undoubtedly surmise that the next one will have to be stronger if it is to work and that grandfathering only serves to undermine the good intentions of their law

Of course you may.

I still believe it is a couple of decades too early. Look for AWBIII to be the mean one.

If you think that Hillary is the only threat you need to check the backgrounds of the forerunners
There are only two that we can assume will diligently protect the 2nd amendment and right now neither one has a chance in hell of winning

I never said Hillary was the only threat. She's just the one that pops into my head the most. Giuliani is nipping at her heels. Most of them are gun grabbers at heart. It goes hand in hand with the diesire for power and control over others' lives.

Come election time, I may write myself in. At least I'll be able to sleep at night.

 

[romma]

Nope!

 

[BAT1]

Absolutely not. I will protect my home, my possessions and my rights from whomever. We either stand together, or hang separately. When it's time to hide your guns, it's time to use them. That would be a sad, but necessary day. The worlds freedom depends on ours.

A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might abuse them, which would include their own government. G Washington, 1790 All rights reserved.

 

[joab]

I still believe it is a couple of decades too early. Look for AWBIII to be the mean one

Who knows
A lot hinges on SCOTUS right now but if a Democrat controlled government is in our future fun guns may not be

 

[ArmedBear]

Honestly, I don't think they have the stones to confiscate existing weapons. I think they know it won't be pretty, and that people won't turn them in anyway.

For that matter, it seems not uncommon that, when someone dies, his (usually it's a he) heirs find that some weapon in the collection falls under the NFA but didn't exactly have a tax stamp.

Sometimes, they're even dumb enough to turn it in.

But anyway, that's one reason we really need to fight a ban. They will likely craft it so that it has the least impact on a current owner of a banned firearm, in the final version. That means that there will be less resistance. If you only ban the sale of something in the future, there is less of a reaction. So we need to fight harder.

I mean, if there were a mass confiscation, do think it would go down smoothly? I don't. So they'll be a little sneakier about it. That's what they did last time.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Let's face the facts, if we get to the place where the gun control crowd has enough votes in Congress to pass an AWB with no grandfather clause, most of us will have already stopped fighting a long time before that and the chances of anyone picking up a rifle when they wouldn't pick up a ballot or a checkbook are pretty damn slim.

 

[ilbob]

I mean, if there were a mass confiscation, do think it would go down smoothly? I don't. So they'll be a little sneakier about it. That's what they did last time.

I expect the first step will be registration of some sort. That will seem less threatening, and give them a list of who owns what.

Later on, they will go to confiscation a little at a time using the gun registration database. I don't recall there being any gun registration scheme that was not eventually used for that purpose.

 

[ServiceSoon]

So if this passes does this mean we turn in our AR's/AK/FAL action-type firearms to the local police department? Maybe a "no look" donation drive with tents set up in Wal-Mart parking lots where we exchange our *evil now illegal* guns for a McDonald's gift certificate?

Doesn't this and this prohibit such actions?

Let's face the facts, if we get to the place where the gun control crowd has enough votes in Congress to pass an AWB with no grandfather clause, most of us will have already stopped fighting a long time before that and the chances of anyone picking up a rifle when they wouldn't pick up a ballot or a checkbook are pretty damn slim.

But the majority of gun owners do vote. Are you trying to bring less govermental attention to the THR crowd?

 

[billwiese]

But the majority of gun owners do vote....

Oops, not true. Wish it were.

There's at least 200 million firearms in this country. If these folks voted and voted pro-gun, we'd not have an ATF, we'd walk around in Capitol Mall open-carry, etc.

There's ~4Million NRA members. I'd say many of those are registered to vote and are 'gun politically active'.

But there are a ton of folks that have guns, use guns, hunt/shoot, possess for self defense and that are either not 'gun politics active', and often not registered to vote. If this were not the case we'd have 8-10 million NRA members.

We also have some fair fraction of 'hunters' that vote for gun control politicians because Clinton & Kerry went duck hunting, or that think AWs should be banned. Even some old-line Garand/M1A shooters aren't too pro-black rifle, and their (and 'duck hunters') lack of support is what helped get CA's first AW ban thru.

Outside of these, the rest of the gun owners are 'inactive gun owners' with an old shotgun in the attic or a 38Spl in the nightstand they don't think much about and guns per se don't intersect in their political life - or, in fact, they even vote anti-gun.


Bill Wiese
San Jose CA

 

[ArmedBear]

BTW, the first step is not registration. It's mandatory reporting of stolen/missing firearms.

With mandatory reporting laws in place, there's a way to prosecute those who would say, "AR? What AR? I haven't had that thing for years."

 

[jpk1md]

Let's face the facts, if we get to the place where the gun control crowd has enough votes in Congress to pass an AWB with no grandfather clause, most of us will have already stopped fighting a long time before that and the chances of anyone picking up a rifle when they wouldn't pick up a ballot or a checkbook are pretty damn slim.

I used to beleive that too but after watching the Pelosi/Reid show this summer on the "No Illegal Left Behind" issue I'm less convinced.

They have attempted this bill and varients something like 6-8 times already this session despite the fact that the American Public overwhelmingly DOES NOT want it.

If things go really badly in 2008 (Scotus and Elections) I suspect that there may come a point in the next 4 years where they actually DO try a Aussie/UK Style Confiscation.

This is one reason that the SCOTUS Case is so important....it explicitly addresses the Constitutionality of BANS on entire CLASSES of firearms.

Additionally we need to get someone that is Pro 2A in the White House or we run a much greater chance of something being rammed home against the people's will......a Pro 2A President would be a stopgap against an unbalanced/irrational Socialist Dem dominated Congress.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Doesn'tthis and this prohibit such actions?

A law banning firearms would be unconstitutional (in my opinion); but it would not be an ex post facto law. See the earlier commentary in this thread.

But the majority of gun owners do vote.

And as long as they keep voting, the chances of another AWB with no grandfather clause is pretty slim.

Are you trying to bring less govermental attention to the THR crowd?

? I have no idea what you are talking about. I am simply pointing out that as long as gun owners remain active in our political system and continue to educate others, we won't get a ban. If we get a ban because people were too lazy to get involved politically, the chances that these same people are going to pick up a rifle when they couldn't be bothered to take less serious measures are quite slim.

They have attempted this bill and varients something like 6-8 times already this session despite the fact that the American Public overwhelmingly DOES NOT want it.

The key word in that sentence is "attempt." If the American public really doesn't want it, then the worst Congress can do is pass a law anyway, lose their jobs and see the law repealed by a later Congress. Our system is pretty foolproof; but it depends heavily on an educated voter at one end of the lever. Ultimately where we will win or lose is by how many voters we manage to keep well educated on firearms issues. Personally, I remember many of the earlier gun control battles and the horrible one-sidedness of the media. The recent shootings in Omaha have showed a noticeable change in the slant of the coverage. It is still slanted; but nowhere near as bad as it used to be,

 

[USAFNoDAk]

"I gave ALL of the evil looking guns 'back' to you guys YEARS ago, during one of those 'no questions asked' gun buyback programs you had running. Why are you asking for them again? As a matter of fact, I don't remember buying them from you in the first place. Oh sure, I had to get your permission to buy them from a licensed dealer, but I paid the dealer, not you guys. Go away and leave me alone now, before I get irritated with you. And take off those sun glasses so I can see who's harrassing me. It's dark at 2 o'clock in the morning, for Pete's sake. What are you, stupid?"

 

[USAFNoDAk]

Not that it really matters, but at the federal level, there is a law that would "seem" to prevent the feds from keeping a firearm owners data base or registration list. Now, the federal government has at times violated their own laws. That's why I used the word "seem". They could vote to change that law, but that would a warning siren, warning of their long range intentions. Do they want to sound that siren and risk waking up sleeping gun owners? We have a lot of gun owners who are virtually sleeping as far as the infringement upon their 2nd A. rights is concerned.

 

[1 old 0311]

Sorry I just sold them all at the last gun show!

 

[MudPuppy]

Well, we don't make FA weapons any longer and we suffered through the AWB ban for ten years until it expired (meaning we didn't get it repealed.)

Look, you can even ask about potential illegal activities like the knowledge of converting a firearm to full auto.

And here's what'll happen, they'll not ban ALL guns, just the bad ones. Like the machine guns, and we'll be cool with that. Or then, no more imported non-sporting guns, and we'll be cool with that. No more high capacity stuff, and we've demonstrated we're okay with that. Next, they'll just prohibit sale of them. And we'll fuss, but we've got ours, so no need to freak out. Then, no more transfers. And that'll be okay, because they're not "banning" or taking them, right. Who's going to fight and die because they're not only NOT taking your gun, they're making sure you actually keep it. Some "anti-violence" tax on the ammo, tighter regs on ranges, through in some insane insurance requirements, that's all reasonable, right? And then, we should really be sure that everyone is safe, that's only logical. So now you've got to prove proficiency at the range...nearest one is 250 miles away and costs $300 an hour.

If the courts uphold it, that makes it constitutional anyway right? I mean, that's how the whole thing works, balance of powers. The constitution itself has a built in mechanism for determining what is or isn't constitutional--unless we just pick and choose what parts to acknowledge (there's more words in there than just the bill of rights).

I hope the millions of gun owners stand up, but I'm not positive it won't be more than sporadic news reports of "another crazy gun nut being stormed and shot to death by local SWAT".

We've made good stride in CCW and I'm happy for y'all, now help be get my FA P90 at retail and we'll call it even.

 

[K3]

And as long as they keep voting, the chances of another AWB with no grandfather clause is pretty slim.

Not only that, but gunowners these days seem pretty eager to write and call their congresscritters.

 

[ShunZu]

I expect the first step will be registration of some sort. That will seem less threatening, and give them a list of who owns what.

Congress has ordered the FBI to destroy their database at least twice that I know of through the years... Then of course, came NICS. God knows who has copies of THAT.

But expect the database exists somewhere. Already. For years.

 

[Autolycus]

Bush the conservative said he would sign the AWB if it is brought to his desk. Not to mention, the great conservative Ronald Reagan was notoriously anti-gun in his presidency and governorship of California.

So dont blame the "democrates" as you posted in the first post. I suspect that the Republicans and Democrats will work just as gard to disarm you.

 

[ilcylic]

"Oh, no sir, I don't have one of those rifles."

Well, it's true. I don't have one of those rifles...

 

[DDude]

"I sold all my guns so I could buy fuel for my truck."

 

[AZ Husker]

Would it be beneficial to make out some "sold receipts" for all our guns?

 

[BlazingAngel01]

George Washington: "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

all i will say

 

[orionengnr]

dang boating accidents...they're more common than you might imagine

 

[Thernlund]

Vote Ron Paul in 2008 if you want someone who wants to follow the Constitiution.

-1

Ron Paul is a kook.


-T.