Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Let's discuss the REALITY of where we are at on the 2A and Gun Control

Discussion in 'Legal' started by leadcounsel, Dec 23, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Old Fuff

    Old Fuff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    23,908
    Location:
    Arizona
    The powers-that-be don't want to make the NICS system available to private sellers, but rather to force these sales to be processed through an FFL. In the United States most firearms are not registered, and this is particularily true of those made before 1968. Gun control advocates know that to work, future control measures must get these firearms listed into a database.

    I am at a loss to understand why some folks on our side want to help them.
     
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2012
  2. mljdeckard

    mljdeckard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    12,739
    Location:
    In a part of Utah that resembles Tattooine.
  3. Old Fuff

    Old Fuff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    23,908
    Location:
    Arizona
    The really important reality to remember is in the Supreme Court's Heller decision the "right to keep and bear arms" was established as a civil right, equal to all of the others listed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    In the McDonald decision this was incorporated, and thereafter applied to the states as well.

    It is improbable that a ban that clearly violated these decisions would stand up in court. In the past they could because previous court decisions usually took the position that the purpose of the 2nd, Amendment was to allow states to have militias. Heller and McDonald ended this interpretation.

    The current extent of gun, magazine and ammunition sales - and the numbers they represent, clearly show that our community is large enough to deal with many legislators who will in less then 2 years be up for reelection.

    The president may issue Executive Orders, (that will quickly be challenged) and the Congress may (or may not pass laws) that will also be quickly challenged in the light of Heller and McDonald as well as a number of other recent lower court decisions.

    Never before has our position been this strong, contrary to what the leftist mainstream media is putting out.
     
  4. Beau Bo

    Beau Bo Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Messages:
    24
    Location:
    Colorado > 7000 ft...
    I was under the impression that the weapons I purchased through a FFL and for which I submitted info for a background check were already in a "database". My understanding is that once the background check was approved the weapon/serial no. info was added to the form - isn't this a type of "registration"?...
     
  5. nazshooter

    nazshooter Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2011
    Messages:
    123
    Beau Bo: The background check and the 4473 form are two separate things. The background check data is supposed to be destroyed once it has served it's purpose and the 4473 stays with your FFL. This makes it possible for the police to trace a gun found at a crime scene by first going to the manufacturer, then to the wholesaler, then the gun shop and finally to your front door. What they cannot do with this system is to get an answer to the question of "what guns does Beau Bo own?" Your state may keep additional records and some people may rightly suspect that the background check data isn't really being destroyed but this is how it's supposed to work at the Federal level.
     
  6. gym

    gym member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2007
    Messages:
    5,903
    If they go too far, it will be overturned on appeal. It's really that simple.The rights have already been established from former decisions.
     
  7. leadcounsel

    leadcounsel member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    5,365
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA
    Challenges take years and lots of money in courts. The damage could be done, even if reversed 5 years later. And the final pieces of the puzzle come into play when the SCOTUS is stacked by Obama. He may ultimately put 3-5 new Justices in his 8 years. OMG the thought makes me sick.
     
  8. readyeddy

    readyeddy Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,162
    The Democrats will probably find a way to avoid passing anti gun laws on the national level. The election of 1994 is still fresh in the minds of many and no elected official wants to commit political suicide. That's why the NRA is offering no compromises. They've seen it all many times before.

    Of course we are also doomed to repeat history at some point in time. People will always forget eventually, and that's why we have repeating patterns like economic bubbles and busts.

    But for now, 1994 is not that long ago and the major players today were around when Clinton was in office. Look for the real push for anti gun laws in five or ten years from now when Clinton's generation pass into their 70's and beyond.
     
  9. leadcounsel

    leadcounsel member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    5,365
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA
    People keep repeating this but I see it differently and disagree. Folks like Biden, Boxer, Finestien, and others are still in power. They have been rewarded by their anti-gun positions. The Dems see that the nation has an appetite for gun control. Heck the President said he wanted to ban guns in October and he got elected for petes sake! They feel they have impunity. WE are going to see a firestorm of anti-gun proposals.
     
  10. Old Dog

    Old Dog Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    4,664
    Location:
    somewhere on Puget Sound
    I pretty much concur with you here. I'll be mightily (and most pleasantly, of course) surprised if private transfers don't go away. The "gun show" loophole as well. (Although WAC in our state permits sales only to/from members, who all undergo background checks.)

    As for a reincarnation of the old AWB -- the banning of mere features such as bayonet lugs and flashhiders -- we SHOULD be able to fight that nonsense. Magazine capacity caps -- we SHOULD be able to fight this concept, but I suspect we may be betrayed by those within our ranks and capacity limits come in as a compromise.

    All of you who didn't believe we'd ever be back at this point -- you know who you are -- stating for the record that the Dems in Congress wouldn't risk further gun-control efforts, do you feel silly now?

    No conspiracy theory here, but it sure does look like a few groups had a plan in place for when a certain type of tragic event transpired ... And we were all caught unprepared.
     
  11. readyeddy

    readyeddy Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Messages:
    1,162
    Absolutely, it could be now and that's why we need to be ready to support gun rights. But if they want to go down this road, then there will be a backlash of some kind.

    Just remember that what they say is not necessarily what they do.

    Look at the fiscal cliff. To me it's clear that both sides want to go over the cliff. Going over the cliff is the only way achieve necessary tax increases and spending cuts, and it gives them cover to blame the other side so they can keep their jobs.

    It's a complex process. I don't believe the NRA will ever propose laws to make video games illegal. But they can certainly say that the video games are contributing to desensitizing our young.

    Keep the faith and stay calm. Things will eventually work out so long as we show up for the polls and let our voices be heard. But for now, we can enjoy our Christmas holiday. May all my gun supporting brothers and sisters have a merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
     
  12. mljdeckard

    mljdeckard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    12,739
    Location:
    In a part of Utah that resembles Tattooine.
    Boxer, Feinstein, Lautenberg, and McCarthy are all getting old. They know this is probably their last shot. Doesn't mean they are in an ideal position to take it.
     
  13. robhof

    robhof Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2009
    Messages:
    993
    Location:
    Bowling Green Ky.
    robhof

    The anti's always talk compromise, but they want total gun bans as a cure for all gun crime. and how's that working for the drug war for the past 50 years?????:what::what::neener:
     
  14. blaisenguns

    blaisenguns Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2009
    Messages:
    453
    Hopefully the Reps will filibuster any legislation about "gun control", as they have been doing in most cases for the last four years. Now I was thinking, I have a .50 beowulf which uses standard 30rd Ar mags (with the feed lips bent), since thes are advertised as 10 rd mags, couldnt we skirt the law that way?
     
  15. GWARGHOUL

    GWARGHOUL Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2011
    Messages:
    719
    Location:
    Missouri
    Dude, thats supposed to be a secret for now.
     
  16. Deanimator

    Deanimator Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    10,854
    Location:
    Rocky River, Ohio
    1. Unless the Republicans want to lose the House next time around, there won't be ANY gun control legislation.
    2. There probably won't be any ludicrous overreach by Obama via executive order. Having it slapped down or widely defied would make him look like a jackass.
    3. It's VERY likely the Obama will turn the BATFE "loose" as Clinton did. How many innocent people will be harassed or killed due to this is anybody's guess.
     
  17. burk

    burk Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2005
    Messages:
    418
    Nazshooter, As a dealer (or employee) I can state it goes further than that. NICS only ask if the requested Background check is for a "long gun" or "hand gun", they don't ask for any particular information on the firearm. It could be a Youth 22. or a Barrett 50, the guy at the other end of the check wouldn't know the difference. And while the dealer puts down serial # and make and model info on the 4473 this has no bearing on the outcome of a NICS check.

    While dealers are required by law to keep the 4473's, the ATF has no file of them (unless they are part of an active criminal investigation). And NICS is required to destroy all information of past checks after six months I believe. So they are legally barred from creating a registry of background checks.
     
  18. blaisenguns

    blaisenguns Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2009
    Messages:
    453
    These people are realy stupid. I mean the ydont even know what a barrel shroud is.
     
  19. Schwatt

    Schwatt Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2004
    Messages:
    37
    Location:
    Minnesota
    That's every single one in existence right now.

    Even the liberals can't think that is a good idea. When John Q hunter's favorite deer slayer is on the chopping block, the outrage would be massive.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 27, 2012
  20. Hacker15E

    Hacker15E Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,512
    Location:
    Vegas
    I think that memories are VERY short, and likely few politicians think that the fallout from the 94 AWB at election time will repeat itself in '14 based on a AWB vote in '13.

    Although it shows just how much "they" fear the NRA (all fun control advocates, be they in the media, lobbyists, or politicians), look at how many articles last week were about how "the NRA has lost its power over Congress."

    I think when they say/print such things it is in an effort to try and make it true, and not as a statement of fact.

    That being said, until the votes are actually cast, we won't know either way.
     
  21. thagunman

    thagunman Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2007
    Messages:
    30
    ok and if they allow our health records into a background check whos to say a miscarried child wouldnt be grounds for refusing a transfer? or a broken bone? one could argue that a miscarried child would create depression and that woman would be unfit to posess a firearm. a broken bone could infer a fight took place and therefore refuse a firearms transfer based on the possibility of a potential retaliation which in fact never occured.
     
  22. exavid

    exavid Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2010
    Messages:
    645
    Location:
    Medford, Oregon
    One thing I don't understand about gun registration is what good does it do? Usually these madmen kill themselves after their spree. It isn't hard to find the murder weapon. If it was stolen so what? Either the owner reported the theft or he didn't know it was missing. So what difference to the act of murder does that cause?
    Gun control by the government really is meaningless. To do any minimal good at all you'd have to confiscate all civilian owned guns. That isn't going to happen and of course it won't get guns out of the hands of people who do bad things with guns.
     
  23. col_temp

    col_temp Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2012
    Messages:
    286
    Location:
    Seattle Metro Area, WA
    deanimator,
    As if this hasn't happened already. He is just arrogant enough that I wouldn't be surprised to see him try. And them of course blame everything on Bush!.

    Great comments all.
    I suspect that we will see something about the mental health ownership. I agree it's a bit of a slippery slope, and has unintended consequences.

    I wouldn't surprised at some push to place a limit of some type Like CA on mags or such (As useless as that proposal is. Do they have any clue how long it takes someone with a "legal" mag to switch to another!)

    I hope that there isn't a compromise that places the online sale of Ammo or magazines or parts in the bust bin. I really don't see the numerous suppliers out there allowing that nonsense to go on.

    I wish this crap about the "gun show" loophole would go away. There isn't one. What it should be instead is a private sale loophole.
    So i can't sell you my grandpas gun without an FFL. What's next? I can't sell you a knife either? Then I can't sell you any kitchen utensils as well? Where does big government end?
     
  24. col_temp

    col_temp Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2012
    Messages:
    286
    Location:
    Seattle Metro Area, WA
    exavid, They have already tried this. Any one remember after Katrina? Confiscated all the guns from legal owners. Guess what, violent crime went through the roof. Only the criminals were armed and the police when you could find one who wasn't running one of the crime gangs!
     
  25. exavid

    exavid Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2010
    Messages:
    645
    Location:
    Medford, Oregon
    col temp I am very aware of what happened after Katrina. Can you imagine what would happen if they tried that on a national scale? There just aren't enough feds, police or even Armed Forces to do that. As for what they might try is to pass Diane Frankenstein's bill which calls for registration of all "assault rifles" and licensing among other general irritations. I only hope our Republicans in the House can hold the line and that some right thinking Democrats will do the right thing. Even then Obama can wreak havoc on gun owners with the EPA. Outright outlawing lead bullets due to contaminatin claims, hazardous chemicals in primers, toxic material in gunpowder, air pollution by firearms, etc. There are a lot of ways he could make it very difficult for gun owners without needing approval by congress. In fact I'm wondering why his EPA chief just resigned. Who knows who will replace that fool.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 27, 2012
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page