Next Pro Gun Battle?

[Ryan1021]

I would like to see the 1934 ban go, but that is just a dream.

 

[carp killer]

This election is ALL about SCOTUS.

 

[RavenVT100]

OTOH, is there a competition for which any firearm useful for self defense would be suitable?

Service rifle competition is quite popular.

 

[twoblink]

reciprocity of ccw IMHO.

 

[telewinz]

I think the gloves will come off and you will see Bush actively support major pro-gun bills. Bush's last 4 years may well indeed be the "high water mark" of the pro-gun movement.

if there "Has" to be a Restriction on former criminals, that it should only apply to murder convictions only.

I'd go alot further than that...rapists, robbers, repeat violent offenders, kidnappers, and repeat substance abrusers. There are plenty of people in this country that shouldn't be trusted with as much as a dull butter knife.

 

[RevDisk]

Are there any movements at the moment to repeal any other gun control laws? Specifically, the big gun control laws, like the MG ban, GCA or NFA?

If not, which would be first to campaign against? Go straight for giving NFA the axe, or start with the MG ban and work backwards?

 

[Zach S]

As an 18 year old, I wanna buy ammo for my handgun. And, given that background checks are here to stay, I wanna be able to buy handguns, too.

lol, a buddy of mine in Burnsville got one of those ruger carbines that use P-series mags in .40 S&W. No one would sell him ammo for it. He got mad and traded it for an AK variant.

As for getting rid of stupid laws, I think NIB MGs would be nice, along with OTC supressors.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

buzz_knox gave a pretty level-headed evaluation of the possibilities I thought.

In evaluating what we can do for the pro-gun cause, we have to first look at what we have to work with.

We have a House of Representatives where we have a 15-20 vote margin (at best) on banning semi-autos on cosmetic principles.

We have a Senate where we are down 4 votes on banning semi-autos based on cosmetics.

After this election, we will pick up 2-3 votes in both the House and the Senate. If we only pick up 2 votes in the Senate, then who the vice-president is will be very important as we will either have a vice-president who opposed the gun ban on nonexistent plastic guns (Cheney) or a vice-president with a 100% Brady record (Edwards) to cast the tie-breaking vote.

Since our margin in the Senate will be razor thin, we will be completely unable to pass any reform that the Dems are willing to filibuster on. However, the Dems are already trying to pretend they aren't pro-gun control so we can force some victories through by controlling the dialogue.

In that area, I think CCW reciprocity and lawsuit preemption are probably two of the more promising bills that we could pass. Lawsuit reemption already has a majority of support in both Houses, we just need enough solid pro-gun votes to keep the Dems from tacking on killer amendments in the Senate.

CCW reciprocity would be even harder as the antis in the Dem party recognize the precedent this would set and might be apt to filibuster it using the same arguments of "blood in the streets" that have been proven false in many states now.

I think if we redfine an attack on the "sporting purpose" clause to simply acknowledge a "self-defense clause" we would be on strong ground. America still widely recognizes the right to self defense with a firearm. This would play well to a largely ill-informed public; but the antis would never let this go without a filibuster. At best we could just expose their agenda to a lot of people who think that the antis do not represent a serious threat.

 

[jdege]

I think if we redfine an attack on the "sporting purpose" clause to simply acknowledge a "self-defense clause" we would be on strong ground. America still widely recognizes the right to self defense with a firearm. This would play well to a largely ill-informed public; but the antis would never let this go without a filibuster.

I may be wrong, but I thought that while the "sporting use" requirement was in statute, the definition of "sporting use" was simply an administrative rule.

If that's correct, it's a change that could be made fairly quietly. It wouldn't need Congressional approval.

It'd need a majority vote in Congress to stop it, not to pass it.

 

[armoredman]

The National CCW for active and retired LE is a law now, and in effect. the NRA and others have entered in a bill to expand this to Corrections Officers. The trend to watch here is the same the LIEberals use ...baby steps. Next will be expanded to Armed Security Guards, and then CCW holders, under full faith and credit....yes, it can happen.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I may be wrong, but I thought that while the "sporting use" requirement was in statute, the definition of "sporting use" was simply an administrative rule.

How "sporting use" is interpreted is an administrative rule; but I don't see much point to expending political capital to change an administrative rule when the next anti Administration will simply change it back.

If you redefine the statute to include self-defense, you affect a whole host of laws and administrative rulings that use that statute as their basis - and while it is harder to get that through Congress, it is also harder to undo as well.