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

see page 91, the August issue of American Rifleman

Discussion in 'Legal' started by alan, Jul 15, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. alan

    alan Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,594
    Location:
    sowest pa.
    The headline reads Restrictions On Part Imports Remain After Clinton Ban Ends, to which one might inquiry, as follows. Exactly why are we, the law abiding saddled with such consummate stupidity? Is there anything sacred or holy about 18USC, 922r, or for that matter George Bush's 1989 Executive Order, or CFR 178.89? One would think not, so why are we seemingly stuck with such stupidity.

    Why on earth are semi-automatic versions of the FN FAL, the HK 91, the ubiquitous Kalashnikov, or any number of other entirely serviceable long guns precluded from import? There is absolutely no good or valid reason for such prohibition, the mere enactment of some idiotic legislation, or the issuing of an even dumber Executive Order do not support such prohibition, no way in hell do they.

    Remember folks, amendments to the constitution have been undone, Prohibition for example. It's imposition took an amendment to the constitution, and getting rid of it took the same thing. How much simpler is it to vacate an Executive Order issued by a previous president, one that a questionable bureaucracy literally wrapped it's legs around, as one would greet a long lost lover. Legislation can also be repealed or otherwise changed, why not this Unsoeld Amendment?

    Some might counsel against going after the above, advising that we not rock the boat, that we accept what tiny crumbs we might be given. That's one school of thought, however there is another way to look at the things. Are the anti gunners ever satisfied with whatever small crumb or small victory they might, at any moment in time, obtain, it doesn't so appear. They keep pushing, and you know something, they have made, over the years, significant headway, toward attaining their desired goals, their stated goals..

    A proper descriptive phrase might be "proactive", as opposed to reactive. Why is it that our side seems reactive, rather than proactive, and does it have to be this way? Anyone have any ideas? By the way, it seems that S. 1431 is still kicking around. Look out for that one.
     
  2. Treylis

    Treylis Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2003
    Messages:
    1,332
    Location:
    Tempe, Arizona
    I believe that Bush can rescind that executive order at any time, but since he's a spineless Republican, it's highly unlikely.
     
  3. Foreign Devil

    Foreign Devil Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Messages:
    507
    Can you fight an executive order in the courts, or some other way?
     
  4. TallPine

    TallPine Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    7,734
    Location:
    somewhere in the middle of Montana
    Because we're not out there trying to take other people's rights away.
     
  5. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,041
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    TallPine, you've nailed it.
     
  6. alan

    alan Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,594
    Location:
    sowest pa.
    In response to my post re an article in August American Rifleman, another to follow, TallPine quoted me, and wrote the following:


    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Why is it that our side seems reactive, rather than proactive
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Because we're not out there trying to take other people's rights away.


    __________________

    Seems to me as if DEFENDING OUR RIGHTS is a pretty good reason for being proactive, but what do I know?
     
  7. Reno

    Reno Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Messages:
    376
    Location:
    Colorado
    Things are only going to continue to get worse, eventually leading to an outright ban if we don't get proactive. The NRA is leading us to slaughter with their "enforce the laws we have" shtick. Without working to get old laws repealed (1986 MG Ban, 1968 GCA, 1934 NFA), we're done.
     
  8. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    The ban on import parts is not an executive order but also a Congressional law (an amendment by former Democrat Rep. Jolene Unsoeld of Washington's 3rd district).
     
  9. TallPine

    TallPine Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    7,734
    Location:
    somewhere in the middle of Montana
    Yes, but by definition being "proactive" means you are trying to change something.

    Now, if we started a campaign to repeal GCA 1968, or NFA 1934, then we would be being proactive because we are trying to change an existing law.

    But a lot of gunowners (on THR even) seem perfectly happy with those laws ("oh my gosh we can't let felons have guns..." etc.).

    But as it is we (as a group) are mostly trying to maintain the status quo: no new gun control laws, and just let the AWB expire.

    The one area that HAS been proactive is the many states were CCW is now shall issue. We will really be getting somewhere when a significant number of states are "Vermont[Alaska]" carry - no permit required for CCW when there is no criminal intent.
     
  10. alan

    alan Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,594
    Location:
    sowest pa.
    TallPine wrote, including quoting me:


    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Seems to me as if DEFENDING OUR RIGHTS is a pretty good reason for being proactive, but what do I know?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Yes, but by definition being "proactive" means you are trying to change something.

    Now, if we started a campaign to repeal GCA 1968, or NFA 1934, then we would be being proactive because we are trying to change an existing law.

    But a lot of gunowners (on THR even) seem perfectly happy with those laws ("oh my gosh we can't let felons have guns..." etc.).

    But as it is we (as a group) are mostly trying to maintain the status quo: no new gun control laws, and just let the AWB expire.

    The one area that HAS been proactive is the many states were CCW is now shall issue. We will really be getting somewhere when a significant number of states are "Vermont[Alaska]" carry - no permit required for CCW when there is no criminal intent.


    __________________

    Your definition of "proactive" is exactly on point, and as for the changes in the law that you make mention of , actually repeal of existing legislation, that is what is needed.

    As for the gun owners that you mention, I submit that they are their own, worst enemies, and that they basdly need to pull their heads out of the sand, to use a polite term.

    As for the very great increase in SHALL ISSUE STATES, that is, as you describe it, an example of being proactive, however even this is not without problems. An example of which, in my personal view, is the flatly discriminatory nature of the fees charged in some states. The costs of mandated "training", one could perhaps describe this facet of the thing as "a license to steal" are also problematic.

    Given that our friends on the anti gun side never rest, they keep chipping away, why on earth should we be anything other than proactive? Obviously, that is what they are, no?
     
  11. TallPine

    TallPine Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    7,734
    Location:
    somewhere in the middle of Montana
    alan:

    I'm planning on contacting my state senator and representative about getting a "Vermont carry" law passed in Montana. But we only have a legislative session every 2 years so the next one is in 2005. I think MSSA would get behind this one.

    Vermont ... Alaska .... seems like Montana is getting left behind - we definitely need to keep up our "wild and crazy" status. :D

    A CCW license means paying a fee and asking permission to exercise a constitutional right. Seems like they shot that one down with voting a long time ago ... :(

    Besides, the county sheriffs have more important things to do than fingerprinting gun owners. :rolleyes:

    Taking Back America ... one state at a time.
     
  12. alan

    alan Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,594
    Location:
    sowest pa.
    TallPine:

    I suppose that it all turns on everyone doing what they can. Of course, we then come upon another conundrum. How does one spell CAN, or how would it be defined, and by whom.

    Being that your state legislature meets every two years might create a problem of sorts, though in or out of session, the guy or gal is still your state rep. or senator, and keeping "in touch", re items of interest to you is most definately appropriate, or so it appears to me.

    Of course there are your guys in Washington, D.C., respecting some of the garbage that occupies space in federal statute books or that thing called the USC.
     
  13. TallPine

    TallPine Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    7,734
    Location:
    somewhere in the middle of Montana
    alan,

    The every other year thing is great IMO, cause the legislature can only do so much damage and then have to go home. ;)

    I actually know these two guys somewhat personally, at least well enough to say "hi" to them on the street. The state senator owns the local sawmill.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page