The Big Soft Underbelly of Gun Rights

[Cosmoline]

While I expect the resurgent Dems to push for another AWB, a BMG ban and similar nonsense, these traditional anti-gun hobby horses don't seem to have the legs they did a decade ago. Even in the wake of the college shootings, there wasn't enough momentum to get any major legislation passed at the federal level. The Second has seen remarkable resurgence in academic and judicial circles. And of course the CCW revolution has come full circle. I don't think we're going to see a return to traditional gun ban legislation.

Though it's impossible to predict for certain what will happen in the next cycle, I am worried about the antis on the Hill taking a new, quieter approach. Since the traditional overt grabs are non starters, they may try to hit our rights from another direction. If you can't beat the Indians in open combat, you kill what they eat. I can imagine some subtle amendments to the BATFE's jurisdiction in the next cycle of anti-terror laws, giving them the ability to limit sales of more than X number of cartridges to license holders. And then it's just a matter of taxing the bejesus out of ammo makers. Bullets themselves are nearly impossible to regulate. But smokeless powder and primers are only made at a tiny handful of plants, and would be very easy to tax. They wouldn't even have to tax sales at the register. They could just raise license fees for the factories up and up, while shutting down imports and sales of surplus. It's an easy way of curtailing the RKBA without ever directly banning anything.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Though it's impossible to predict for certain what will happen in the next cycle, I am worried about the antis on the Hill taking a new, quieter approach. Since the traditional overt grabs are non starters, they may try to hit our rights from another direction.

Taxing and regulating may well prove more "effective," from the socialist perspective, than prohibition.

 

[crazed_ss]

California is already starting the process of passing laws to restrict ammo.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Yeah, like the OSHA attack on black and smokeless powder, etc.

Woody

 

[BigRobT]

Let's not forget the backdoor approach that is being taken in regards to mental health issues. Just like the guy in Pa that made the stupid comment about guns in his vehicle and the DA had his 2nd Amendment rights revoked.

 

[alucard0822]

Gun control doesn't work (if crime control is your goal) the general public is getting wise to this, and pushing gun control is a good way to get a large percentage of americans to rally against your next bid for re-election, so what to try next? At this point most of the anti-s heiarchy know that they are aggainst the ropes, losing funding, influence and state after state to shall issue the old misinformation, emotional pleas and public indifference to gun rights are no longer effective. They are basically screatching their heads to come up with new and innovative ways to gain ground. The internet, forumns like THR and the constant vigilence of millions of Gun loving patriots gives us the best tools to not only catch 2A infringements in the making, but to counter lies with facts, organize grass roots action and have a public platform, and alternatives to biased media channels. I am optimistic that we are further along in our crusade than we have been in my lifetime, but with a crappy selection of candidates in 08, general public disgust with bush and the war and the "it's to fight terrorism" basically replacing "its for the children" as the excuse to erode our rights we may be in a bad position in a couple years. We are on the winning side presently and the more we take newbies shooting, the more active we are in writing letters and amassing support, and the more vocal we are,the better position we will be in when the looming big fight for our rights and all the little fights leading up to it, we have been pushed around, and the 2a has been ignored for nearly the last 100 years, now it is our turn to fight back and reestablish some of our rights

 

[AZRickD]

Mental health and storage regulations of all kinds. As well as tack-ons for possessing a gun in the commission of a crime, real or imagined.

Anti-gun prosecutors will use them agressively to jail some and intimidate the rest.

Rick

 

[45Badger]

As well as tack-ons for possessing a gun in the commission of a crime, real or imagined.

Not sure what the real or imagined part has to do with it, but I don't have a problem with tacking on mandatory, not eligible for plea bargain or parole sentencing to crimes committed with a gun.

Rob a bank- get 5 years
Brandish a gun- it's + 10 years
Fire the gun-it's + 20 years
Wound someone- it's + 30 years
Kill someone- you meet your maker in quick time.

Or something like that.

 

[Standing Wolf]

I'm surprised the leftist extremists haven't pushed hard for legislation mandating insurance for those of us who choose to exercise our Second Amendment civil rights.

 

[fjolnirsson]

Not sure what the real or imagined part has to do with it, but I don't have a problem with tacking on mandatory, not eligible for plea bargain or parole sentencing to crimes committed with a gun.

Rob a bank- get 5 years
Brandish a gun- it's + 10 years
Fire the gun-it's + 20 years
Wound someone- it's + 30 years
Kill someone- you meet your maker in quick time.

Or something like that.

Why? Why do we need extra sentences for using a gun during a crime? Is a murder victim less dead, because she was shot, rather than stabbed or choked? Is a woman less raped if she was forced to comply with a knife, instead of a gun?
I don't understand the thinking here. Murder, rape, robbery...these crimes should carry their own mandatory sentences, without demonizing guns further. Brandishing? In some states, if your shirt rides up, or the wind blows open your coat, you've just brandished. Is a 10 year sentence really justified there?
If I rob a store, and I shoot someone in the leg, how is that worse than if I'd stabbed him?
How about a guy with a medical marijuana card who gets caught in a raid by the feds, and is legally carrying his concealed piece? Does he get the extra sentence, too?
I believe we have plenty of laws, too many, in fact. Let's enforce the good ones, remove the bad ones, and stop this silly tacking on of charges. If a crime is worthy of jail time, the criminal should serve it, regardless. We shouldn't have to tack on extra charges to ensure someone serves enough time. Why sentence a guy to 20 years, plus 10, to make sure he serves 20?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

fjolnirsson,

I think the answer is to replace "gun" with "weapon".

Woody

"I carry a gun 'cause I can't carry a cop!"

 

[obxned]

The attacks on the 2nd will take many strange new forms. We have already seen this happening. They never seem to give us time to catch our breath, and it won't get any better unless a hard line pro-gun president is elected (fat chance). Worse still, in the name of homeland security, the other Rights will be in danger also. I fear we are in for a very bumpy ride!

 

[Dravur]

The Evil Minions...

are patient. Just wait and see what happens should the Hildabeast win. The 666 will pop out on her skull and the leftists will just about wet their pants trying to figure out how to screw us.

 

[KLDimond]

Add-on penalties

The "with a weapon" stuff is already there. However, if someone is dead by being choked, a broken neck, internal bleeding or neural shock caused by fists or feet, or the septum shoved into brain, how is that better than if a weapon was used? I consider the "bare hands" murder to be much more daring, and indicative of a much more hardened criminal, than use of a weapon.

Crimes of force are cimes of force. I don't care if the force is based on superior size and strength, quickness, training or use of a weapon. A crime of force should be handled simply as that, with added penalty for harm done, including gross pyschological harm, as in rape.

 

[illspirit]

They will come at us through the First Amendment. I've been watching (and fighting) them here for the last two years now.

Since late 2005, there has been a massive Democratic push to ban video games with guns in them (think of the children!!), but there have been not-so-subtle undertones which hints that they don't want to stop there. For instance:

After the game came out based on the "Left Behind" books, the nutroots over at DKos hatched a scheme to exploit the phony moral panic over violent games to attack games they view as "Christian propaganda." The goal being to eventually attach the "harm" which junk science the left has been funding "found" in video games to religion. At least one State rep so far has proposed a law up in NY to make it illegal to sell religious games with any violence to minors. With "violence" being defined vaguely enough that you would become a felon for showing your kid an electronic depiction of the story of David and Goliath. And it was originally an old friend of mine who works (as in, paid, not a volunteer) for the DNC who told me about the nutroots' scheme..

Up in Massachusetts, our old pal Menino and a dozen or so Democrats have submitted a State law which would add "violence" into the existing list of content which is obscene, and inserts video games into the types of media which can be found obscene. Sounds innocuous enough, until you realize that it would also make books or movies with any violence obscene as well. A Republican in Utah was conned into proposing an identical bill by someone out of State, but it was killed when rep' Margaret Dayton brought it to everyone's attention that the law would basically ban The Bible too.

Now, think about it. What would a bunch of would-be gun-banners (who got rather quiet after '04) want all of a sudden with banning virtual guns when they usually hold (or pretend to hold) the First Amendment as sacrosanct? What would they be able to do if they were able to use junk science to overturn Brandenburg v. Ohio or Miller v. California to find "violent" speech obscene?

We already know that lots of schools and "net nanny" software applications block pro-gun sites on the internet as being "violent." If they could get this coded in law, they may vary well try to use COPPA and its progeny to place all sorts of insane restrictions on sites like THR as if it's porn or something. If they could force pro-gun sites to require things like credit card age verification and member record keeping, it would surely put a crimp on the internet-based grass roots. And if it didn't scare everyone away, it would provide a handy list of pro-gun activists for the government to check up on. You know, to "protect the children." Not to mention clamping down on grass roots "lobbying" in the name of so-called campaign finance reform.

 

[budney]

Not sure what the real or imagined part has to do with it, but I don't have a problem with tacking on mandatory, not eligible for plea bargain or parole sentencing to crimes committed with a gun.

The "imagined" part presumably refers to various classes of victimless crimes. So someday a 16-year-old will be caught smoking, with a rifle slung over his shoulder, and the presence of the gun will convert the charge to "felony armed underage smoking," and he'll get a mandatory 5-year sentence.

--Len.

 

[Waitone]

International agreements constitute the future threat to gun rights. Opening fire has already landed in that Mexico is complaining about the river of guns coming from the evil US into pristine and virginal Mexico.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

KLDimond,

Yup. Go with the "Use of Force" thingie. I like that better than simply the use of a weapon. If it's other than sweet-talking, it is force, isn't it!

Woody

 

[chemist308]

They have a harder time now because of who's in office(s). Backdoor approaches are not as fast, but just as dangerous if not kept in check.

That said, next election will be critical. If we don't do our part and prevent the anti 2-A folks from taking office by voting and getting others to do the same, we may well find them taking some very direct approaches that ban more than just "assault weapons."

 

[freedomwanted]

I have a question, since missouri has passed a law that if a person breaks into your home you can shoot with out being sued by the one you shot. My question is if your a non-violent felon can you protect your self in your own home? Are do you just have to let the intruder kill you while the cops are on there way if they can even find you?

 

[Sniper4Life]

I have to disagree with you cosmaline, THE BIG SOFT UNDERBELLY OF GUN RIGHTS IS THE EDUCATION SYSTEM!! No buts about it. 99% of colleges and highschools are administrated by liberals. In my county, small county, and just about everybody has a gun, they dont care if .50's are banned, Hell I argued with a teacher for about 2 hours on that one. I have recieved my fair share of anti gunness and alot of it has been from classmates who have been already brainwashed. I remember after the VT shooting Me and my dad (he is a teacher at the school I go to) argued against the physics class about the right to carry on campus....... The list goes on and on..... Its the future generations that will shape our gun rights... and the anti-gunners have been doing a good job of that, your kid starts getting it in k-12, by the time he or she graduates, they have been successfully brainwashed. Its also in the way the teachers teach, our history teachers teach the constitution, that the national guard is the militia, not armed citizens....

I better get of this rant, I hope you can understand what I am saying, Sure the antis will try to ban ammo, but who are they going to get to vote for it? The future generations, which have been taught "guns are bad and evil" we get all the protection we need from the police.... THE EDUCATION SYSTEM IN THE USA HAS BEEN DEFILED.... if we could fix the education system and have the constitution and our rights taught correctly and un-biased we would get somewhere... but until then....

 

[lance22]

Yep - agreed - they will be focusing on eliminating the supply. Eliminating supply means legislating expensive stupidity into ammo manufacture, transports, and sale. They will continue their drive to shut down gun shops via blomberg-like drives, false accusations, bogus 'zoning', and harassment over paperwork. On top of it all the Dems have their one mantra - their one solution to every problem - higher taxes. The power to tax is the power to destroy.

Sniper4Life drives home an important point about schools / colleges - and for that matter 'old media' as a way of manipulating the electorate ... much to think about there that I don't often consider.

 

[ZeSpectre]

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance

They will never EVER quit
We can't either!

It really is that simple. We MUST have the mindset that we're in this for the long haul and that every day will be one more battle to preserve that which we believe in.

Now I'm not saying this needs to rule your life, balance in all things. But at least once a week we should all consider "hrmmm, what did I do to safeguard that in which I believe?

Oh and I agree about the education system. I support basic sex-ed classes, drivers ed classes and think there should also be basic firearms safety classes. Aren't they all intended to help avoid "accidents"?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

But smokeless powder and primers are only made at a tiny handful of plants, and would be very easy to tax. They wouldn't even have to tax sales at the register.

The problem with that approach from the anti perspective is that they have only been successful in the past when they were able to split up gun owners into different groups (junk guns, handguns, assault rifles, etc.) and defeat us in detail.

If they attack the supply of ammunition, that affects everyone immediately and gets the maximum amount of backlash from gun owners.

 

[Elza]

Bartholomew Roberts: The problem with that approach from the anti perspective is that they have only been successful in the past when they were able to split up gun owners into different groups (junk guns, handguns, assault rifles, etc.) and defeat us in detail.

It all goes back to what Benjamin Franklin said at the signing of the Declaration of Independence:

"We must all hang together, or, assuredly, we shall all hang separately."

If we as a group fail to defend everyone’s rights, we will all lose in the end. I personally don’t give a flip for shotguns or AW’s. But I will fight just as hard for these as I will my beloved EBR’s and handguns.