What's Next For Gun Control Laws?

[mboylan]

I see things moving in the other direction. I think we will see fewer handgun and CCW restrictions due to recent Supreme Court decisions.

 

[zorro45]

gun control

let's not do any creative thinking for the antis!

 

[DavidMS]

Only thing I can see is defensive actions on their part.

We won on Heller. There are plenty of interesting follow up legal actions.

Next step for the Antis is to oppose ending capricious carry laws. Step after that is for Antis to oppose including the four rules of safe gun handling at an age appropriate place in the public school curriculum health class.

The ant movement isn't dead but its not the threat it used to be.

I look forward to the day that gun ownership is non political.

 

[JERRY]

if you actually think the Democrats and turn coat republicans will cease their assault on our constitutional right to keep and bear arms you are wrong. history has shown that even when the cards are stacked against them they will push their agenda with magazine limits, gun type restrictions, ammo restrictions, delaying buying tactics, you name it it is not without chance.

it is not even politically slanted to just the Democrats. look at so called republicans like voinovich, romney, mccain and others who sign on with the Democrats to strip, reduce, or outright deny our rights.

 

[Girodin]

THE big gun control issue is determining what level of scrutiny gun control laws will receive. The SCOTUS holding the 2nd guarantees an individual right in Heller and then incorporating it against the states in McDonald were crucial foundation but the standard of review is going to determine what is even on the table for gun control, it could potentially undue a number of current laws.

Before and after that battle gets fought, I believe the current trend will continue, certain Democratic enclaves will continue to push senseless laws. Other states will continue to expand RKBA protections. At the federal level I do not foresee congress taking action. There is simply not the political will for it and the backlash would be too strong. This was apparent in 2008 when people went crazy and since then there is likely even less desire to burn political capital there among congressional Democrats and they have lost control of congress anyways.

Nothing will occur via the much alluded to UN treaties or the like. To put it very simply treaties cannot violate the constitution anymore than domestic statutes. All this talk comes from those who are either woefully ignorant of international law or people deliberately fear mongering.

The real battles are at the state and local level and hopefully someday rolling back some of the pointless an completely ineffective federal laws. The latter is likely to be much more difficult than many of the state battles (save the hardcore democratic anti gun enclaves).

 

[JERRY]

not until the tyranny in illinois falls will there be any real ground gained. keller and mcdonald havent done anything in real life in chicago with its ani gun laws, d.c. is still wash with hurdles to prevent basic ownership, new jersey, maryland, california, nyc, and hawaii still make it next to impossible for the average person to go about legally armed.

 

[PBR Streetgang]

I'll bet there's something hidden in the healthcare bill on gun control,,,,any takers?

 

[langenc]

I read the question but think the answer is:

Quick removal of US congress and state legislators that violate 2A rights. Continuing with city/town counciler that want to ban guns from parks/playgroiunds and college campusses.

Sure quick action would be noted. Gun people are not noted for that kind of action and will never happen-look at arguments over joining a 2A rights organization.. NO ONE TELL ME WHAT TO DO was heard when local gun club made NRA membership mandatory.

 

[bikemutt]

Below is a link to a Seattle Times guest editorial piece titled "Gun control is a good crime-prevention measure but not for mass murder". On balance they got it right, gun control is of little or no use when it comes to someone hell-bent on mass murder.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2018389810_guest10fox.html

 

[Bubbles]

IMO future efforts will be directed at expanding the definition of "prohibited person" rather than at firearms. Examples:

- Anyone convicted of a misdemeanor would be prohibited (this has already been started with DV convictions).
- Anyone taking medications to control mental illness would be prohibited.
- Anyone on the "terrorist watch list" or "no fly list" would be prohibited.

 

[Neverwinter]

Look to the current movement from the localities which are trying to bar voters from exercising their rights. The stated goal is to prevent voter fraud, but the rarity is overshadowed by the desire to disenfranchise citizens unfavored by the promoters. We will see more of the same through elimination of private sales and the consequent expansion of the capability to exclude people from their rights.

Sent using Tapatalk 2

 

[Girodin]

- Anyone convicted of a misdemeanor would be prohibited (this has already been started with DV convictions)

With certain types of DV convictions. Typically ones involving physical violence. What is scary with these laws is how broadly DV is defined in some states. For example DV usually in the state I am most familiar with attaches when the people are older than 16 and cohabitants, related by blood, or have a child together. That means that two 20 year old college roommates that get in a fight could wind up restricted persons. The true irony is that someone that beats up his/her significant other wouldn't provided they don't live together or have a child.

In all honesty it is a category that makes more sense than non violent felons. These status restrictions are by and large pretty worthless laws though.

What other statuses could be included and what restrictions could be placed on them would largely turn on level of scrutiny applied by the courts.

 

[Prince Yamato]

I think gun control is a dead issue. The only uproars you will see are against carry in "sensitive places" and an impending brouhaha when silencers (in my estimation) will become a title 1 firearm.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

Below is a link to a Seattle Times guest editorial piece titled "Gun control is a good crime-prevention measure but not for mass murder". On balance they got it right, gun control is of little or no use when it comes to someone hell-bent on mass murder.

And it's little to no use on crime prevention. England has a crime rate much higher than ours and gun ownership is quite rare in the hands of the law abiding.

 

[Owen Sparks]

What is next for gun control?

Probably something for "the children". Nothing works better in politics than appealing to peoples emotions, especially the half of the population that is female. Emotion trumps reason for a large percentage of the population and how they feel carries a lot more weight than facts. After all, it is FOR THE CHILDREN!

 

[GEM]

That didn't work after Columbine or VT to produce national gun control. Or the Amish horror.

 

[SleazyRider]

I'm thinkin' the "black powder loophole" (Uh-oh, did I just coin that term?) will be closed when Bloomberg, Schumer, et al, discover that anybody with a credit card can order one from Cabelas and use it to knock off their spouse or the local bodega. All it would take is a high-profile incident using a black powder revolver to occur, or possible an expose on Sixty Minutes, to set the wheels in motion. So you'd better get one while the gettin's good.

 

[rdhood]

1. "closing the gun show loophole" = end private party transfers of firearms/require all firearm transfers to be conducted through a FFL dealer

2. "lead ammo ban" = ban all ammo containing lead on the grounds that lead ammo negativily effects the enviroment

...

Mandatory insurance policies for gun owners

I think these are the most likely kinds of attacks. The anti crowd will seek to restrict the use of guns and increase the expense of owning guns... without actually restricting the legal ownership of guns themselves. The above three items do not prevent anyone from purchasing a gun or using a gun... as long as you can get ammunition for it, insure it, and create a paper trail of ownership.

Things like RFID, microstamping, etc. are all non-proven technologies that won't necessarily apply to older guns... and there are a lot of older guns.

I think what the anti's want (in order) is for you to 1) not purchase a gun... or get rid of a gun you have... because it is too expensive to maintain, 2) make a record of every gun transaction with accompanied background check and 3) not be able to use the gun (lack of ammunition) if you can get by the first two disincentives.

Think "reasonable restriction", and these all appear reasonable to the anti-gun crowd , and possibly pass SCOTUS. In about two or three generations, all guns would eventually go through an FFL, all gun owners would be known, and have to have insurance (think car insurance... if you can't afford it, you can't have one), and ammunition would be scarce.

 

[Ric_in_OR]

"What do you think the gun control movement will try next?"

Tax. Particularly on ammo & components for ammo.

How much is the tax on a pack of smokes?

 

[rajb123]

The concealled carry laws in NY and NYC are very simple to explain and understand. If you are not Bill Crosby, Howard Stern or other social media star you are denied.

 

[rajb123]

The simplest place to start with new gun laws is old gun laws.

* Outlaw so-called asault weapons
* Outlaw big magazine clips
* Outlaw so-called cop killer bullets
* Require trigger locks
* Require gun companies to automate guns with smart chips
* Require gun companies to fingerprint new rifles, and pistols

The clinton's enacted the most restrictive gun control measures since 1964 and they ares comming back to a location near you!

 

[bhesler]

I'm thinkin' the "black powder loophole" (Uh-oh, did I just coin that term?) will be closed when Bloomberg, Schumer, et al, discover that anybody with a credit card can order one from Cabelas and use it to knock off their spouse or the local bodega. All it would take is a high-profile incident using a black powder revolver to occur, or possible an expose on Sixty Minutes, to set the wheels in motion. So you'd better get one while the gettin's good.

It happened in Norristown, PA in 1999. A mentally troubled worker at a mental hospital shot two coworkers, killing one, with a black powder revolver.

http://articles.philly.com/1999-06-...ajkowski-norristown-shooting-carol-sue-kepner

 

[winterhorse290]

we may be safe(for now) until one or more of the supremes either retires or checks out. then it,s all going to come down to who,s in the white house and who controls the other two houses. decisions can change from one court to the other. so far it,s usually a 5/4 vote. thankfully in our favor. one liberal judge could change all that.
so.... buy it, stack it, and get a good shovel.

 

[winterhorse290]

and again. the 72 cal flintlock of the 1700,s was the AK of it,s day. the highest form of technology that could be had. fast to load(for it,s day) simple to operate and was designed to throw large amounts of lead(in volley fire) to kill and maim. not too accurate, but cheap to produce and maintain. hmmm, maybe it WAS the AK of 1776 that the founders talked about in the 2nd amend? assault weapon? yes for any who would assault our rights and freedoms

 

[SleazyRider]

It happened in Norristown, PA in 1999. A mentally troubled worker at a mental hospital shot two coworkers, killing one, with a black powder revolver.

http://articles.philly.com/1999-06-...ajkowski-norristown-shooting-carol-sue-kepner

Interesting article. Here in the Evil Empire State, black powder handguns do, in fact, have to registered if you intend to use them or if you have the fixin's, that is, balls and powder. Wall hangers need not be registered.