So what's most likely to be banned / regulated?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mixed control in Congress and a broader support of firearms than 1994. I don't expect anything. I also made a decision years ago to get what I really wanted/needed plus magazines so that if things were ever banned (assuming you were grandfathered to own) I didin't need to worry about it.
 
Anyone knowledgeable on the topic knows that legislation is required to actually enact a ban so nothing is going to be banned.

With the SCOTUS decisions on DC and Chicago an Executive Order will be challenged and defeated unless it involves very subtle changes that will have negligible results for the general population of shooters.
 
NOTHING!

Why do people expect the 1st term is just setting up the 2nd term. If doing something / anything is your primary agenda, you do it 1st thing. There was NO guaranty a 2nd term was coming. He signed and opened up being able to bring firearms onto national lands. If he was so anti gun, he'd have vetoed it, just to get himself started.
 
My only concern, and it is not a major one, is changes to what types of firearms are imported. A while back there was a report questioning the validity of the Saiga 12 and other shotguns as being for "Sporting Purposes". I don't know if possibly reinterpretation could also affect other Saigas but the use of which they can accept high capacity magazines could make them a prime target. However, i was concerned about this before the election so nothing new.
 
So...given how things went last night. I think many of us are more afraid of unconsti

"So...given how things went last night. I think many of us are more afraid of unconstitutional executive orders, ATF regulations, etc. than legislative action."




I read and FULLY understand the OP's meaning.

That is the part that scares me,that the "dead horse" in the white house will come out with orders that are NOT constitutional.
 
I also made a decision years ago to get what I really wanted/needed plus magazines so that if things were ever banned (assuming you were grandfathered to own) I didin't need to worry about it.
Click to expand...

That's a great idea for people who have had the time and means to get everything they wanted/owned. People like me, who are still building their collection...
 
The threat to our 2nd amendment may not be an immediate one but it is coming.
Click to expand...
Absolutely! Don't be lulled into a false security because of past wins in the SCOTUS or a lack of bills previously introduced. A second term is a whole new ballgame.
 
You guys that seem to think there is no way legislation will come about are betting everything on an increasingly slim assumption. Plus, once he gets one or two appointees to SCOTUS, there will be a new 2nd Amend case brought, specifically to void the individual right from the law. Then there is the UN treaty thing. Then there is the option of simply "decreeing" things bad, or polluting, etc etc thru one of the regulatory agencies. Literally anything is possible at this point.

They will go after the 2nd Amendment. It is a necessary step in the plan they have been following for decades. They have also said outright they plan to, both from the white house and the official Democrat platform.
 
Absolutely NOTHING is going to happen for at least 12 to 18 months.

The administration has way too much on their hands with the economy. If everyone doesn't pitch in to avoid the upcoming cliff, gun control will be the least of our worries. Can all y'all imagine 25% unemployment? No, not the real - current unemployment rate with a reported rate of 7.9%, but a 25% that is reported to the public. That would equate to a real unemployment rate of around 30% to 40%.

Fix the economy, get 'em fat & happy, then turn the screws but by then no one will care because they've done such a good job turning everything around. Yeah, I am a cynic.
 
JustinJ said:
What cases specifically are expected to be brought before the supreme court?
Click to expand...

None that I’m aware of. Are you saying that you believe the battle over the 2A is over? If a couple more justices were appointed by Democrats, do you believe the outcomes of the recent cases would have been the same? Hell, we have a hard enough time getting a president with an R by his name to appoint a pro 2A justice… If you think challenges to the 2A are over and our side won, then I guess it doesn’t matter. BUT, keep in mind one side believes the Constitution should be interrupted in the context of current times; times in which the 2A is outdated and no longer applicable...
 
an unconstitutional EO will be knocked down pretty quick

Can you name an EO by this prez that has been knocked down at any time? At last count he had issued over 140 of them. In my book, that's a LOT of EOs.

I can easily see a ban of some kind on AWs, and taxes on everything, guns, ammo, powder, primers, bullets. All of it. It's already been tried in Chicago, never mind that nothing came of that one probably because there's virtually no guns legally sold in Chicago anyway.

And yes, the UN ban is always sitting out there in the wings. I never thought of Reid refusing to bring that up for a vote in the Senate. Scary.
 
Onward Allusion said:
The administration has way too much on their hands with the economy.
Click to expand...

I think that is what people said when they pushed through Obamacare.

I am not going to panic and assume gun control is going to get stricter.

I sure as heck am not going to stick my fingers in my ears and ignore the fact that stricter gun control might happen.
 
I'm worried about SCOTUS appointments. That's it.

I think it is a very common miss to assume that Dem Senators would support an AWB or similar legislation. My State has two Dem Senators. My State (Oregon) also has an FBI estimated 39% rate of gun ownership, which is dramatically above the national average. Our Senators would be committing career suicide by supporting bans, and they know it. Washington State is similar, etc. For all the "liberal" blaming, you won't see many Dem Senators lined up to support a ban.
 
First thing to go is going to be this thread. Not because the conversation is being unreasonable or unrealistic, but because there's been a trend of squashing speculation about what The Big O is going to cram down our throats this four years. I do not know what items will be first, nor do I know how soon, but they will be restricted, banned or confiscated (the last is unlikely) one of two ways. First will be Executive Order. He's already stated openly that he views this as an end0run around congress and the will of the people. Secondly will be legislation that must be "passed so we can see what's in it". Anyone remember that ploy? Then they can deny they knew of the litany of provisions restricting Second Amendment rights. The Second will be only one of many under attack, though.
 
"The administration will "have" to respond to the "public outrage"

How will the president push it through Congress? He won't be able to. Remember, the president cannot run in the next election, but the members of Congress want to be re-elected. Job number one is keeping your seat.


"I am not going to panic"

The last time I did that was during the years leading up to the passage of the GCA of 1968.

John
 
I am more concerned about regulations and taxes than I am about some sort of magazine restriction, "assault weapon" restrictions, eliminating the "gunshow loophole", and so forth. The EPA has broad authority to save us from ourselves.

I see taxing authority to be the biggest short term issue. The Chicago tax is a good example of how it will be sold to the public. You say it won't stand up to judicial scrutiny? That takes years and in the mean time, things move forward. People adjust, but none of the changes will be viewed as sufficient to incite social rebellion.

Yes, you need to be concerned about the UN small arms treaty as it only requires Presidential and Senate approval. Increasing the power and authority of the UN fits right in with my impression of the views of the current administration. It doesn't matter what the US people think in the short term.

So we move forward... to what end, I don't know.
 
$0.25 per primer tax. To the unknowing, it sounds reasonable. Adds $5 to a standard box of rifle ammo, not a big deal. Adds $12.50 to a box of pistol ammo. Not so reasonable. Makes reloading almost useless.

Also, banning handguns via the health care act as a matter of public health. Wouldn't require any legislation and many legal minds have said that because the way that the law is written makes it not subject to Federal judicial review.

Matt
 
None that I’m aware of. Are you saying that you believe the battle over the 2A is over?
Click to expand...

No, all i've done is ask a question. However, for further gun restrictions to occur new laws must be passed by congress and the pres, which is extremely unlikely. Yes, an unfavorable supreme court make-up could certainly make it much harder to reverse existing regulations but the supreme court can not impose new laws.

Not to mention that 2nd amendment related cases heard by the supreme court are not exactly common and generally have had long periods of time between.

If a couple more justices were appointed by Democrats, do you believe the outcomes of the recent cases would have been the same?
Click to expand...

They probably would have waited until a more favorable makeup existed to bring them to court.

BUT, keep in mind one side believes the Constitution should be interrupted in the context of current times; times in which the 2A is outdated and no longer applicable...
Click to expand...

Hardly. I'm afraid there are two sides which believe in selective interpretation of the constitution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top