What are the feared "Future Restrictions" driving up gun sales?

[Twmaster]

Like others here I do not think a full on frontal assault on our gun rights will come soon.

Instead I believe those in power are going to build up slowly until they have all their pieces in place. Think things like SCOTUS and other judicial appointments.

Further, I think restrictions will be seen first. Think bans on ammo containing lead....

 

[comus3]

"Modern sporting rifle"

 

[Grmlin]

Many good coments here. There will not be a frontal assault on the 2nd Amendment our gov't will work to subvert it over time as they have the 1st Amendment. They will use executive orders, U.N treaties (another useless organization), E.P.A. regulations (lead), and any other way to put laws and restrictions in our way. They have been doing it for years and they have time. We have been makeing progress lately but we must remain on gaurd. Like was said earlier in this thread we gun owners are more connected now with the internet but the internet can be restricted, monitered or just shut down. Yes, I know all this sounds extreme and paranoid but here it is. I grew up in a restrictive state, I remember the 80's, and I just do not trust our gov't anymore (Republican or Democrat). It's a sad day to feel that way about the country I love and spent a large portion of my life defending.

 

[sawdeanz]

I just can't understand what they think they are accomplishing by subvertly attacking gun rights, I mean they must just really hate guns on their face. Seeing all of these issues in one thread is reminding me to vote reppublican this year.
Out of curiosity tho how does a retroactive magazine ban work? I know that the constitution protects from arresting people retroactively after passing a new law (can't think of legal term), so how is that different from confiscating magazinnes? I always assumed that is why the awb and machine gun ban of '68 grandfathered in those things.

 

[sawdeanz]

Secondly don't the antis know when they ban all our guns they will lose all of our generous 11% gun taxes and nfa fees that they need for all of their spending?

 

[Neverwinter]

Ever hear of a scandal called "Fast and Furious?"

He then used those numbers saying that "94% (or so) of the guns recovered were from the US," as laying the foundation for future laws and restrictions.

Such as making the border states report EBR sales, even tho there was no authority to do that.

Do you not recall him assuring the Brady folks that "we're working behind the scenes" regarding gun control efforts?

You not paying attention doesn't make it a non-issue simply because you're unaware of key facts.

The quoted 90% statistic originates from 2008 before Obama's inauguration occurred.

The "assurance" was an uncorroborated testimonial from Sarah Brady, who has shown herself to be an inaccurate source regarding gun control.

What you have are not key facts, but inaccuracies repeated so often that their falsity has been overshadowed by the desire to rationalize partisan/tribalistic leanings.

 

[Twiki357]

I'm not as concerned about legislation as I am about a reelected NObama circumventing the constitution with executive orders. Considering that his gofers in DOJ & Homeland Security pretty much control all the Federal law enforcement (Consider Fast & Furious), the damage could be done long before congress or SCOTUS could react.

 

[alsaqr]

I'm not as concerned about legislation as I am about a reelected NObama circumventing the constitution with executive orders.

The president has no authority to write such an executive order. In any event congress could revoke that EO if they really cared.

BTW: Its fashionable to criticize Obama for his high number of executive orders. Obama has promulgated 111 EOs to date.

EOs by other presidents:

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html

Eisenhower: 481

Reagan: 380

Carter: 319

G. W. Bush: 290





http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/disposition.html

 

[beatledog7]

It's not the number of EOs; rather, it's what they say.

With enough backing and too little resistance from Congress, it would only take one.

 

[W.E.G.]

The feared future restrictions are the same garbage we've been shoveling for years.

Ignorant and disingenuous politicians doing the work of those who would disarm the ordinary man.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo

 

[AlexanderA]

Out of curiosity tho how does a retroactive magazine ban work? I know that the constitution protects from arresting people retroactively after passing a new law (can't think of legal term), so how is that different from confiscating magazines? I always assumed that is why the awb and machine gun ban of '68 grandfathered in those things.

The constitution bans "ex post facto laws," which are criminal penalties imposed on behavior which wasn't illegal at the time it took place. In the case of a retroactive magazine ban, the crime would be the continued possession of the banned item from the time of enactment forward. Presumably, there would be an effective date by which people would be expected to get rid of the banned items. Previous bans, like the AWB, had grandfather clauses merely because of political expediency; they were not required.

 

[44Brent]

What restrictions are people worried about.

Supreme Court has said that 2nd A applies to individuals and is enforceable against the States and people cannot be prevented from having handguns in their homes.

There is an assumption behind this question that the executive branch of the U.S. government has, and will continue to operate within the confines of its limitations defined by the Constitution. However, that assumption has already been proven to be false by the following executive order recently issued by Obama, which in short says "I, the President will take anybody's stuff that I want, because I say so":

http://www.infowars.com/martial-law...rder-national-defense-resources-preparedness/

PART II – PRIORITIES AND ALLOCATIONS

Sec. 201. Priorities and Allocations Authorities. (a) The authority of the President conferred by section 101 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071, to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense, is delegated to the following agency heads:

(1) the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;

(2) the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;

(3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;

(4) the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;

(5) the Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and

(6) the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.

(b) The Secretary of each agency delegated authority under subsection (a) of this section (resource departments) shall plan for and issue regulations to prioritize and allocate resources and establish standards and procedures by which the authority shall be used to promote the national defense, under both emergency and non-emergency conditions. Each Secretary shall authorize the heads of other agencies, as appropriate, to place priority ratings on contracts and orders for materials, services, and facilities needed in support of programs approved under section 202 of this order.

(c) Each resource department shall act, as necessary and appropriate, upon requests for special priorities assistance, as defined by section 801(l) of this order, in a time frame consistent with the urgency of the need at hand. In situations where there are competing program requirements for limited resources, the resource department shall consult with the Secretary who made the required determination under section 202 of this order. Such Secretary shall coordinate with and identify for the resource department which program requirements to prioritize on the basis of operational urgency. In situations involving more than one Secretary making such a required determination under section 202 of this order, the Secretaries shall coordinate with and identify for the resource department which program requirements should receive priority on the basis of operational urgency.​

 

[beatledog7]

Presumably, there would be an effective date by which people would be expected to get rid of the banned items.

And exactly how would one be expected "to get rid" of such an item? If Person A paid $xx for the now banned item, how would the government compensate Person A for the loss?

A retroactive ban of hi-cap mags and a subsequent confiscation of same would open the door to the government's ability to ex post facto ban and take anything, like a "gas-guzzling" SUV, an inefficient light bulb, or gold bullion.

 

[44Brent]

And exactly how would one be expected "to get rid" of such an item? If Person A paid $xx for the now banned item, how would the government compensate Person A for the loss?

A retroactive ban of hi-cap mags and a subsequent confiscation of same would open the door to the government's ability to ex post facto ban and take anything, like a "gas-guzzling" SUV, an inefficient light bulb, or gold bullion.

Let me intervene into the above discussion thread and point out what may not be obvious.

There is no necessity for the government to go door to door to pick up banned items. What Obama can do under his executive order that I cited earlier is to simply divert all output of production of gun manufacturers to the U.S. Government.

NO MORE SALES TO CITIZENS is authorized under his own illegal and unconstitutional order.

All it takes is for Obama to tell his Czars that he wants them to carry out his executive order right now, and that the U.S. Government needs all firearms produced by Ruger, Winchester, S&W, and every other manufacturer. That doesn't mean that private citizens have to turn in their collection -- it means that you get to keep your collection but that you can never grow your collection with newly manufactured firearms.

Is there anyone here that can't see this scenario coming? My recommendation is that if you think your collection is inadequate and that there is something you would like to add, DO IT NOW. In fact, now that I've thought about this a bit, I'm heading over to my favorite store to place a couple of orders.

 

[BLB68]

DO IT NOW.

Or don't. We don't need more panic buyers driving up prices.

 

[dragon813gt]

Future restrictions are not going to be what most are thinking. If I had to bet I'd say it's going to be along the lines of Switzerland's ammo ban. They know there is going to be a lot of resistance to take firearms. Restrictions on ammo are quicker and easier. All it would take is for the EPA to ban lead projectiles completely to make shooting financially unfeasible for a lot of people.


Brought to you by TapaTalk.

 

[beatledog7]

Re: my post #63:

My point there was that there's no practicable way to enforce a retroactive ban.

We only need be concerned about a going forward ban, one that would rob us of the freedom to do/buy anything deemed inappropriate by our federal overlords.

Some people balk at the "slippery slope" argument. Others balk at the idea that granting government a power to do something we want it to do can easily turn on us later when it does something we don't like, citing power we gave it.

But both are real.

A citizen who believes government should have the power to ban hi-cap mags or suppressors or whatever ought to remember that a power gained is never relinquished easily. The next administration or next Congress will still have the banning power, and could use it to strike down something nobody is currently expecting.

 

[armoredman]

On the other hand, the states seem to be going farther and farther the other way.

 

[AlexanderA]

beatledog7 wrote:

And exactly how would one be expected "to get rid" of such an item? If Person A paid $xx for the now banned item, how would the government compensate Person A for the loss?

A retroactive ban of hi-cap mags and a subsequent confiscation of same would open the door to the government's ability to ex post facto ban and take anything, like a "gas-guzzling" SUV, an inefficient light bulb, or gold bullion.

Oh, they could do it all right. It's just that the likelihood of that happening is extremely remote, for political reasons. But let's look at this a little further.

The Constitution provides for compensation for the "taking" of private property for public use. Therefore, if, for example, the government requisitioned your gun magazines for the use of the army, they'd have to pay you the fair market value. But if they merely made the possession of an item a criminal offense, that's not a "taking" and no compensation is required. It would be up to you how to get rid of it so that it would not be found in your possession.

Indeed, the government could criminalize the possession of practically anything. Look at the marijuana laws.

 

[swinokur]

Future restrictions=Barack Obama

 

[mortablunt]

Another AWB mostly is it. there's also talk of some sort of registration or more waiting periods.

 

[Sky]

http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Charles_Schumer_Gun_Control.htm

Renew assault weapons ban - no legitimate use for them
“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” To let the assault weapons ban expire just as we are realizing its benefits would be a major setback in the success we’ve had in reducing crime over the last decade. The fact of the matter is that there is no legitimate use for these weapons. That was as true in 1994 as it is today. The bottom line is that the assault weapons ban is working and we are safer because of it.“
Source: Press Release ‘ATF data’ , Nov 5, 2003

Maybe he has changed his mind and at least not many listened/agreed with him back then.

Maybe any news worthy item will be grabbed upon to stir the pot and once again demonize the 2d. Nothing is static, only quite moments before the assault.

Charles Schumer on Gun Control
Democratic Sr Senator (NY)

We have won many battles these last few years; but never underestimate our opposition. We need organizations like the NRA (and others) trying to advance our cause or at least hold the line.

 

[mrvco]

You won't see sweeping legislation that rallies gun rights groups... I think they've learned their lesson on that front. Going forward think "war of attrition"...

What you will see are attempts to add layers of bureaucracy, regulations, fees, taxes, warnings, registrations and what they can do to make things slower, less convenient and add subtle layers of control. I forget the specifics, but there was a style of mag fed shotgun sitting in my LGS that suddenly became restricted due to a "tweak" in how the ATF interpreted one of their own regs last year... "One Less Gun".

Things like the EPA tightening the regulations on lead are a good example. I'm surprised they haven't proposed adding a carbon tax on gun powder (yet) to help offset its (purported) cumulative effect on "Global Warning". I'd be surprised if there wasn't one already in some parts of the country, but a DARE-style program in the public schools for domestic violence that indoctrinates kids against guns and document to kids who (among other things) say "daddy has guns hidden in the closet".

The opposition isn't getting lazy or giving up, they're just adapting their tactics.

 

[alsaqr]

There is no necessity for the government to go door to door to pick up banned items. What Obama can do under his executive order that I cited earlier is to simply divert all output of production of gun manufacturers to the U.S. Government.

It's all malarky: infowars is not a reliable source of information.

The Defense Production Act of 1950 is the basis for this executive order. Nearly every president since Ike has signed an executive order implementing the act. The Defense Production Act was extended by congress in 2009: The Republican ran house of representatives passed the law by voice vote. It became Public Law 111-67.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Defense_Production_Act_Reauthorization_of_2009

 

[mortablunt]

Nowhere to be seen. Take a look at fact check; "Gun Ban" Obama was never that much of a gun hater anyway. He just had his ideas and said what was to be expected of a nationaly solvent Democrat.

http://www.factcheck.org/tag/gun-control/