Realistically...how worried should we be?

[WestTexShooter]

The DRats in reality don’t want to pass any heavy duty gun control - right now.

They will hold off until closer to the 2020 Presidential election so as to have it as a major issue.

 

[Dibbs]

So, I’m hearing a lot of chatter about gun owners doomsday in 2019 when the new house gets up and going. In your opinion, how worried should we be?

Should WE be worried? THEY're the ones who ought to be worried. It's getting easier and easier to track politician's voting records.

 

[Deanimator]

Wrong. Background checks don't have to be 100% airtight to reduce the number of disqualified people getting guns, and therefore to be marginally useful.

Without registration, "mandatory" background checks on private sales are only a suggestion. They are 100% INeffective. But then that's the core of the grift: pass something you KNOW will NEVER work so that you can pass something FAR more oppressive to "fix" what was designed to fail.

Sorry, not falling for the con.

NO, I REFUSE.

 

[JohnKSa]

I'd rather have those items in the hands of citizens than sitting on store shelves.

Of course that's where they're all going to ultimately end up. Virtually everything on a store shelf will ultimately go into the hands of citizens.

The difference is whether it gets there in an orderly fashion at a reasonable price, or if citizens panic, causing lines, shortages and driving prices up to unreasonable levels.

 

[Steve S.]

The wind is blowing in their direction because it is not blowing in ours - the gun culture is loosing numbers and the #I’MOFFENDEDBYEVERYTHING culture is gaining. Somewhere down the road the gun culture will have to decide as to what degree they are willing to stand their ground and what price is too high to pay. Those same decisions had to be made in the Civil War - what principles are worth that degree of cost. It will be interesting to watch that decision making and cost analysis unfold - fight or flight.

 

[CoalTrain49]

No, it's the BEGINNING of the end of the world.

Without REGISTRATION, it's a complete and utter nullity.

Registration has NO purpose beyond facilitation of future CONFISCATION.

We have a UBC here without registration. WA is a partial POC state and long guns are not registered but pistols are. OR is a full POC state and everything gets registered by the state. So if a national UBC were passed and you live in a non-POC state there would be no registration. If you now live in a POC state you likely already have registration.

I'm not going to argue about the purpose of a UBC because honestly I don't know what it is. All I know is they don't work. That has been demonstrated numerous times by people who acquired firearms legally with a background check and still killed lots of people with them. Still they're becoming increasingly popular because most people don't believe the intent is confiscation. Even gun owners vote for them because they don't perceive them to be a threat. If you have gun owners voting for them you have a problem. Nobody can tell me they don't because I saw it happen here in WA.

If the real reason truly is confiscation we're going to have an armed resistance in this country just like we did in the revolution and local law enforcement agencies will have to do it. I know some sheriffs and I can tell you they aren't up for that unless it's an ERPO from a judge. In that event they're just going to kick your door down and search for weapons anyway because they have a warrant. A registration didn't lead them to your guns.

 

[AlexanderA]

The DRats in reality don’t want to pass any heavy duty gun control - right now.

They will hold off until closer to the 2020 Presidential election so as to have it as a major issue.

I personally think that the national Democrats will downplay the gun control issue in the 2020 presidential election. The reason is that the two main paths for victory for them are the "upper tier" of states (Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin) and/or the Sun Belt (Florida, Texas, Arizona). There are lots of gun owners in all of those states. The Democrats can't afford to antagonize them. On the other hand, the hotbeds of gun control, on the West Coast, the Northeast, etc. are already in the bag for the Democrats, and going heavy on gun control won't gain them anything there.

You can already see this happening when Beto O'Rourke is "clarifying" his earlier calls for an AWB to say that he's only for a ban on the commercial sale of such weapons. (That would mean a windfall profit for current owners of the weapons, in much the same way that the Hughes Amendment raised the price of machine guns.)

 

[Deanimator]

We have a UBC here without registration. WA is a partial POC state and long guns are not registered but pistols are. OR is a full POC state and everything gets registered by the state. So if a national UBC were passed and you live in a non-POC state there would be no registration. If you now live in a POC state you likely already have registration.

Without registration, the UBC is practically unenforceable, but that's by design. It's MEANT to fail, setting the stage for a push for registration,, which is nothing but a tool to Implement bans and confiscations. Ask a proponent how Chicago implemented its handgun ban. He'll either refuse to answer or lie and say he doesn't know.

Sorry, we've been down this road before. To borrow a line from Barbara Stanwyck in Remember the Night, "That one's so old it's got whiskers. "

 

[John Joseph]

The House can't accomplish anything on their own and the Senate,if they can get their act together, will continue to confirm strict Constitutional-ist federal judges appointed by President Trump.
That's a good thing!

I'm more concerned about legislation at the State level (CA in particular)

 

[CoalTrain49]

And after the 2020 election when we have a dem president and a dem congress we get all sorts of ugly gun control.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Without registration, the UBC is practically unenforceable, but that's by design. It's MEANT to fail, setting the stage for a push for registration,, which is nothing but a tool to Implement bans and confiscations. Ask a proponent how Chicago implemented its handgun ban. He'll either refuse to answer or lie and say he doesn't know.

Sorry, we've been down this road before. To borrow a line from Barbara Stanwyck in Remember the Night, "That one's so old it's got whiskers. "

I guess it's up to those who don't have a UBC yet to fight it. I've already fought my battle here and lost, without any help from the NRA. The only help we got was from the SAF. That's where my money goes these days.

Like I said, there are 11 states with UBC's and for the most part they haven't been used for illegal confiscation. I know of a few but they weren't legal. Where's the legal authority for confiscation? Has to be some legal authority like a ERPO warrant for search and seizure. Do you think the local law enforcement agency is going to take it upon themselves to confiscate without authority?

We need to worry about laws like ERPO giving them that authority. That's far more onerous than registration.

 

[Tommygunn]

And after the 2020 election when we have a dem president and a dem congress we get all sorts of ugly gun control.

A number of people here should realize that crystal balls do not actually work in this dimension .... maybe in THE TWILIGHT ZONE or THE OUTER LIMITS.

 

[SilentStalker]

I see you guys stumbled into one of my Christmas Eve drunken questions! Lmao!

 

[Trunk Monkey]

No background check system is ever going to work 100%. It's impossible to design such a system, with or without registration. The goal is to reduce the number of disqualified people getting guns, not to set up an airtight system.

Sen. Coburn proposed a background check system with safeguards against registration, following the Sandy Hook incident. That proposal didn't go anywhere because it didn't suit either side's agenda. Both the pro- and antigun lobbyists would rather have a live issue -- so that they can raise funds by scaremongering -- than an actual settlement.

The goal is to get universal registration.

Statistically less than 1% of criminals obtain their firearms through private sales or gun shows.

They primarily obtain them through theft or straw purchases. Neither of which would be affected by Universal background checks.

 

[jdc1244]

So, I’m hearing a lot of chatter about gun owners doomsday in 2019 when the new house gets up and going. In your opinion, how worried should we be?

Shouldn’t be ‘worried’ at all.

The gridlock will apply to firearm regulatory measures as well.

 

[AlexanderA]

The goal is to get universal registration.

Their goal is registration, and our goal is to avoid it.

I'm against registration. That's one of the baddies, along with AWB's and magazine limits.

My point is that UBC's do not necessarily involve registration, if the background check system is properly designed. Saying that UBC's necessarily involve registration lessens our credibility, since it's not true.

I'm personally not in favor of UBC's either. However, they seem to be popular among the legislators. If they're going to become law anyway, we need to be in a position to argue for a system that precludes registration (such as Sen. Coburn's proposed system). In this day of the Internet and computer technology, that could be easily implemented. If we flatly link UBC's to registration, that would preclude such a strategy on our part, and we would be more likely to get registration.

Argue against UBC's, and argue against registration, but do so separately. Linking the two could mean that we lose on both.

Anyway, saying that UBC's inevitably lead to registration -- as an argument against UBC's -- resonates only with the gun community. The general public doesn't care about this. Registration is not as big a bugaboo to the general public as it is to us. Be careful about only preaching to the choir.

 

[AlexanderA]

The gridlock will apply to firearm regulatory measures as well.

You mean, the way it did to bump stock regulation?

Just wait until an antigun Democrat gets into the White House in January 2021. He could well sweep away AR-15's with an administrative regulation, based on the bump stock precedent. Gridlock would not apply, since he wouldn't even have to consult Congress.

Game this thing out. Put yourself in the shoes of an antigunner and figure out ways you would go forward. This sort of strategizing is sorely lacking among gun advocates. They seem to have absolutely no idea about what the other side is planning.

 

[lightman]

By all means, go out and buy as many semiauto rifles and pistols and magazines and ammo as your budget can afford. Maybe a little more, even. Let's clear those shelves--we know we can do it if we all panic together!

Or not...

If this was intended as a reply to my post, I'm not advocating making a run on ammo and components. But having seen more than one panic, I do advocate keeping enough ammo and components to make a panic easier to live through and not have to pay jacked up prices. Or to get caught short like so many have. No, don't run out to Walmart and buy a million 22's but consider buying a few every other time that you go until you have a comfortable stock built up. If you are a reloader do the same thing with powder and primers.

If this was not referring to my post then I apologize, carry on.

 

[Waveski]

I see you guys stumbled into one of my Christmas Eve drunken questions! Lmao!

Are you stating that you started this brush fire in the wee hours while in a compromised condition , and that you now find that to be amusing?

 

[CoalTrain49]

His credibility is diminished.

 

[cheygriz]

What????? ME worry????

 

[Deanimator]

Just wait until an antigun Democrat gets into the White House in January 2021. He could well sweep away AR-15's with an administrative regulation, based on the bump stock precedent. Gridlock would not apply, since he wouldn't even have to consult Congress.

Compliance would be... infinitesimal.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if a person got murdered by someone enforcing such a facially unconstitutional Fuehrerbefehl. Remember, the French "yellow vests" don't even have guns for the most part.

 

[Zerodefect]

Truth. Non-compliance would be wide spread. The only thing keeping me honest, is the fact that I don't want to be a felon. Go ahead and rewrite the laws to make me and a million others, felons. See how that works out.

I'm more worried about the conservative, or Republican infighting. The Democrats are good at sticking together and uniting. Conservatives crumble and blow away like dry leafs. If I was our president, I'd wait to the very last minute, then decide not to run again. Leave the republican party in complete shambles, just to spite them. The way he's been treated is shameful.

 

[CoalTrain49]

Truth. Non-compliance would be wide spread. The only thing keeping me honest, is the fact that I don't want to be a felon. Go ahead and rewrite the laws to make me and a million others, felons. See how that works out.

I'm more worried about the conservative, or Republican infighting. The Democrats are good at sticking together and uniting. Conservatives crumble and blow away like dry leafs. If I was our president, I'd wait to the very last minute, then decide not to run again. Leave the republican party in complete shambles, just to spite them. The way he's been treated is shameful.

There is already a great deal of non-compliance here with our UBC. Only a few have been charged in 3 years of the laws existence and that was just chips for plea bargain poker. We have non-compliance and non-enforcement.

In the run up to our new law I-1639 there will be a run on lowers and semi-auto rifles. Actually it started before the law was even passed. I purchased last month because I knew the law would pass.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattl...lations-in-i-1639-heres-what-the-law-will-do/

All these laws really do is put more of a burden on LE and increase the number of firearms in the general population. Just about everyone knows that except the AG crowd. The harder they push the more push back they get.

 

[shoobe01]

Oh, since there's a thread, I'll give my take:

• 1986, Reagan signed a law (with other benefits, do not want to discuss those) passed by Congress that banned MGs. Was anything else /banned/ permanently before this? Precedent.
• March 1989, George Bush signs an EO to consider Sporting Use the key factor in firearms suitability for import, from which followed more demilling, no barrels imported, etc. etc ; ATF surveyed dozens of gun magazine editors, firearms distributors, etc. to make the ruling and almost all agreed with this.
• What R president (or congress) has done anything about this since then? Revoked the EO, or modified how ATF rules Sporting Use? Opened the registry for MGs? Anything past going to NRA conventions really?

At the Federal level, most recent firearms policy change that impacted me positively was Obama signing the order to allow legal CHL holders to exercise their rights in more federal lands.

Why fear Ds in congress when Rs in power don't help in any obvious way, don't roll back regs they could easily dismiss with a signed letter, and at least within my adult life our friends in the industry support all this behavior?