Will guns ever be made illegal to own?

[Sam Adams]

Henry Bowman and NineseveN

If 1st A regulations were like today's 2nd A infringements , the law would be that you have to apply duct tape to your mouth in public because you might yell "fire" or you can't post anything on the Internet until you have had a background check (for each post) to be sure that you are not a slanderer.

That may be a bit mild - I'd say that you'd have to have your tongue removed and you wouldn't be allowed to have an internet connection. THAT is what a ban really means, in 1st Amendment terms.

And, as NineseveN has said, that dog won't hunt.

 

[orangelo]

Nah they won't ban guns. They will just make registration required for them all. Then they ban registration.

Just like Washington DC. Just like Chicago. Just like the 1986 MG registration ban.

That's why the NRA is right, registration WILL eventually lead to a complete ban.

 

[Sistema1927]

Yeah, and you weren't able to get a drink in Chicago during Prohibition either.

 

[Vairochana]

You think it can't happen?

In Australia "self defence" in not considered a "genuine reason' for owning a gun

 

[gunsmith]

In some places in the USA it's already defacto banned

I am a life member of the NRA, I've got the cert, the leather jacket and card...

I am also (so far this year) below the poverty level and up the excrement creek without a paddle $$$ wise, I am looking at selling most of my guns/guitars to get by...I've made some poor decisions this year but the one thing I don't regret is my Life NRA membership...

If a poor bloke like me can manage it, so can you!

 

[MachIVshooter]

The UN are saying the US should do things to help stopping the trade of firearms to terrorists by doing the likes of background checks on those buying and not selling arms to countries such as Liberia, Congo and Somolia. They never said anything about banning legal gun ownership by nations that allow gun ownership. It has no binding effect on the US as a soverign nation and it seems to be a big freak out is all we hear.

Make no mistake, the ultimate goal of the UN (specifically Kofi Annan) is a total gun ban , worldwide. They use sneaky, reasonable sounding rhetoric such as "illicit" and "wrong hands". These are vague terms and can be easily abused. "Illicit" will be anything that the UN determines such, and "wrong hands" will end up meaning civilian hands.

If we turn this issue over to UN control, it will be just a matter of time before they disarm (or attempt to disarm) the American public. They'll start with regulation, then bans and when the last of us refuse to give up our arms, they'll slap UN arm bands on our compliant LEO's and start going house to house.

And if you think our own LEO's and military will not disarm us, all one has to do is look back a year at NO, LA. They may not want to do it, but when they face consequences they will.

 

[Number 6]

Make no mistake, the ultimate goal of the UN (specifically Kofi Annan) is a total gun ban , worldwide. They use sneaky, reasonable sounding rhetoric such as "illicit" and "wrong hands". These are vague terms and can be easily abused. "Illicit" will be anything that the UN determines such, and "wrong hands" will end up meaning civilian hands.

If we turn this issue over to UN control, it will be just a matter of time before they disarm (or attempt to disarm) the American public. They'll start with regulation, then bans and when the last of us refuse to give up our arms, they'll slap UN arm bands on our compliant LEO's and start going house to house.

And if you think our own LEO's and military will not disarm us, all one has to do is look back a year at NO, LA. They may not want to do it, but when they face consequences they will.

How would the UN ever get the authority to violate our constitution? Even if the UN banned gun ownership, such a resolution would have to be ratified by congress, signed by the president, and pass judicial review. Such a prospect is not very likely since it violates sovereignty of our country. How would the UN then take control of our police forces? The UN is a purposely weak organization and would be loath to upset two of its largest donors, the US and Norway, both of which have large gun cultures.

As for the definition of illicit, the UN has stated that it leaves it up to each country to determine what a legal and illegal firearm is. Illicit is then a weapon that is brought into a country that violates that country’s laws. So China selling fully automatic weapons to non-state actors in the US would be illegal, in the same way Sudan arming the Lord's Resistance Army would also be an illicit trade in small arms. Illicit is not as murky a definition as one might think.

 

[akodo]

They never said anything about banning legal gun ownership by nations that allow gun ownership.

You haven't been listening obviously, because yes, yes they have. It just isn't included in the current version they are pushing right now.

Another UN topic here just a day or two ago the UN rep on this issue said that they only wanted to go after those involved in the illicit gun trade, and later defined that as anyone in posession of a firearm not registered with their government. That, boys and girls, is most gunowners in teh USA.


But in general I agree our rights are most at risk through chipping away our freedoms, by making it harder to things like transport your gun to and from the range/hunting grounds, elimination of hunting rights, applying taxes on ammunition (it only takes 1 bullet to kill, 1000 to be a good shot, who will the tax hurt? the murderers? I think not) etc etc

regarding:
How would the UN ever get the authority to violate our constitution?
The UN passes a restriction, and our congress authorizes it. You are right, the UN is below our fed government as far a who exerts the most control, in reality they have as much power as a 'citizens advisory board' However, people in our government, and many voters, listen to the UN. Unfortunately, many voters seem to believe that if our current system is local==>state==>Federal, then they take the next step of putting Global above federal. Now, in general I am against any global government, except perhaps one taht adopted teh USA's bill of rights (setting the citizen above the global government) and siome sort of balance of powers. But as it sits now, the UN, our only form of 'global government' is a travisty. Two bit nations get as big of a say as populous nations. Not that weighting votes by population woudl work either, thanks to the biggest population nations being tyranies and not democracies.

 

[ilbob]

I like watching old westerns, and I assume at one time it really was like Bonanza or The Rifleman where every man wore a gunbelt or had a rifle. I'm a little amazed how much society has changed in 100 years, from a time when it was considered normal to have a gun in the house, and today where guns are considered very dangerous and politicians want to regulate them.

I used to be real interested in western history. The plain facts are that most people could not afford handguns. They were just too expensive. And despite what you saw on TV and the movies, lever action rifles were not all that common either for the same reason. Most people made do with surplus military single shot rifles, or even muzzle loaders. if you don't believe this, look at the production numbers of both lever action rifles and CF revolvers during that period of time versus the population in the west.

Lawmen normally carried black powder shotguns as their primary weapon.

Know why Bat Masterson was called Bat? It was because he carried one around with him and was known to use it.

 

[Number 6]

You haven't been listening obviously, because yes, yes they have. It just isn't included in the current version they are pushing right now.

Actually I have been paying attention and have read a lot of the documentation that has come out of that conference. There have been a few countries that have advocated severe restrictions on civilian ownership, but those are outliers from what most of the other countries have advocated. Pointing to those outliers and claiming that this is indicative of the whole is inaccurate. It would be like claiming that Dianne Fienstein's comments are indicative of all senators.

The other document that people have pointed to contains recommendations that the panel has made. Whether any of those make it into a final draft of a resolution is questionable, and whether or not such a resolution would be binding is also questionable.

 

[Rimmer]

Yes they will, and you know who's fault it will be? No not Hillary, Kerry, Sarah Brady, OR the U.N. It will be THE GUN OWNERS FAULT. MOST gun owners I know don't bother to vote. For $10.00, less than a box of good ammo, you can donate to one of our P.A.C.S, who are fighting for us.
Yes Americans WILL loose this right, and it will be OUR FAULT.

Well said. If anything gets me going it's the armchair talk the talk attitude but most are to damn lazy to address an envelope with a check.

I re-entered the firearms sport 3 years ago after a 25 year absence. Why? Because I saw yet another freedom quietly slipping out from under our feet. When the second dies it sure as hell won't be my fault.

 

[Otherguy Overby]

ilbob:

Know why Bat Masterson was called Bat? It was because he carried one around with him and was known to use it.

Actually, it was because his given name was Bartholomiew... He never liked it.

 

[minuteman1970]

They are chipping away at our rights, little by little. Whatever is not banned today, will be tomorrow's new "loophole".

 

[akodo]

number 6, I read the situation differently.

I see the recomendations that the panel has made as an indication of the direction they are heading. After all, when has a beaurocracy ever written a set of restrictions and then lessened them? Rare as hen's teeth. However, taking last season's set of restrictions and expanding them is the way of the world, in my view.

 

[cslinger]

The right answer to this is simply "Not if I can help it!!!"

I vote.
I write my elected officials.
I bring new shooters into the fold.
I do not hide my shooters ethic.

We need to show everybody we are not a crazy fringe group. We need to show them we are the American ideal.

Thats my two cents.

 

[pharmer]

Yep. First ban lead bullets; affects both factory and reloads. ATF already has a list of 8 (I think) metals not allowed for bullets. No bullets, guns aren't very useful. And most Americans who are law abiding won't break any law no matter what they say on the internet. Joe

 

[Ala Dan]

Yep, if folks cave into the "Clinton Cronie" trap I could see our 2nd amendment
rights vanishing, right before our eyes.

 

[OldSchooler]

Will guns ever be made illegal to own?

Probably. As governments expand, the one thing they most often do is control the ability of their citizens to resist the will of said government.
It happened in ancient civilizations, it happens in modern municipalities, most often in the name of the party and it's ability to protect you in ways that you cannot (protection at the cost of liberty, alas).

As long as the fostered mentality is "they need to do something about that and should pass a law," there will always be someone willing to control the efforts to do so. That is where you should draw the line, behind which you fight. When you hear someone say that, it is time to respond.

Law, order and dogmatic control only works in close knit groups where there is fear of something outside and the desire to have someone else control such things so you, the member, dont have to. There is plenty of fear these days, and plenty of governmental efforts to "control" the causes of it. From hunger to terrorists, the boys in the capital are looking out for you...and most folks meekly expect them to, these days.

Unfortunately, as indicated by the above, we are losing the will among the general population to be self supportive and are ever more willing to relinquish control of our lives to the "Man."

Will this be complete in our lifetime? Probably not. But, grim to say, it has already begun, as you've mentioned. Go to the used book store and spend about a $1.00 to get these classic books (it's still amazing what value a dollar will bring):

"1984", by George Orwell.
"Brave New World", by Aldous Huxley

Read them and compare notes. We are not facing new frontiers here, brother; these things have been foreseen.

 

[50caliber123]

I hate to sound mean but, They can have my guns when I run out of bullets. I will never give them up. I am a registered voter, and vote every election I can (Federal, State, Local). I vote to hold on to our rights, and it is often a battle of the lesser of two evils. I hope that through voting, lobbying, and ultimately peace, we will hold on and maybe even win some rights back. If they still come for them, see above. I won't just hand them over. I try to do my part to help RKBA.

 

[Zundfolge]

If gun bans and increasing gun control are a guarantee then NOW is the time to do that thing that we don't talk about here on The High Road.

I think too often we in the RKBA movement have been conditioned to look at the glass as completely empty as opposed to half full.

There are good signs if you just look.

• The AWB died (just months before it did I would NEVER have believed that such a thing was EVER possible).
• Only TWO states still ban CCW.
• Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws are popping up all over the place.
• Canada is planning on scrapping its gun registry.
• Gore lost in 2000 in big part because of his anti-gun stance
• Democrats are backing away from gun control (and when a Dem comes out pro-gun it doesn't instantly end his career like it used to).
• The UN dog and pony show over the fourth was pretty much a bust.
• Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Not only did it pass, but it did without any new anti-gun crap tagged on (unlike the 1986 FOPA).

I'm sure there's more that can be added to that list, but you get the idea.

Incrementalism is what got us where we are today, and instead of bitching and moaning about how "this is futile...they will eventually get our guns...boo hoo" we need to go on the offensive ... start pushing for the incremental dismantling of the BS gun laws on the books.

I honestly believe that we could start chipping away at the '68 GCA and '34 NFA by pushing to de-regulate suppressors, and pushing even harder to force states and the fed.gov to abide by the good parts of the '86 FOPA (maybe reverse the MG ban part of the FOPA).


If we constantly stay on the defensive and never take the offensive then the only offensive action that will be left to us is violent revolution (which will fail because none of us will start shooting until its WAY too late).

 

[Otherguy Overby]

Could the next step be bans by bureaucrats? We've seen this in places like California and Massachussetts already.

They'll set up something like a firearm safety bureau which then creates regulations ostensibly for "safety" which will require integral locks or other features. IOW, after a certain date all new firearms must include these if sold to the public. Older guns without safety features would have to be deactivated or turned in at a later date.

Ammunition (as previously mentioned) will be ruled hazardous and you'd then need a federal license to obtain it. Making the license hard to get or expensive would be easy for the government. Reloading equipment might then be licensed and regulated. Annual EPA monitored clean up could be required at ranges. Shooting could then be limited to licensed and regulated ranges except for our "right" to hunt when allowed.

Added: The "easter egg" in last year's firearm manufacturer's protection act banning frivolous lawsuits may come back to haunt us with the bit about ammunition that can penetrate body armor.

Sheesh, there's plenty of ways to infringe on gun rights without actually banning them. They did it way back in 1934, again in 1968, 1986, 1994 (which is the only one to sunset). There's been executive orders, arbitrary regulation interpretation and the hits just keep coming.

Yes, we've made some progress on the CCW issues in many states, but look at all the restrictions required in most states. Also fees and licenses required for a right?

The only way to stop the antis is to pry the legislative/regulatory pens out of their cold, dead hands.

 

[Taurus 66]

When I turn on the tv and in the Rochester news is another two shooting deaths each and every day (EVERY DAY!), then think of all the other cities like New York, LA, Chicago, Detroit ... all much bigger cities with greater numbers of this senseless gun violence, I honestly wonder how much more we can take of this (speaking as a nation). With more gun related homicides comes more grieving mothers and more supporters of gun control. Will our gun rights reach the breaking point? I say "Yes". There is coming a time when law abiding gun owners will be given an opportunity to peacefully surrender their firearms and all because of what the criminals did.

 

[gunslinger15]

Id liek to see them try and take guns away from 80 million gun owners damn shure they wont get mine without shooting me dead first. I dotn mind dieing to keep the right to keep and bear arms for my kids and grandkids... besides id have nothing to do if it wasnt for shooting and hunting or at least nothing worth living for.

 

[Finch]

I don't think it is a matter of if guns are made illegal to own. To me, it is a matter of when laws are put in the books banning private firearm ownership, will anybody follow them? "Nope officer, I have no guns, then all accidentally fell over board last week when I went fishing."

 

[evan price]

They won't ban guns.

They'll find a way to ban ammunition. Wasn't there an attempt a few years ago to try to get the EPA to regulate small arms ammunition by classifying it as a "Hazardous Substance" that failed due to the EPA not wanting that much more red tape without funding, & that funding was not provided?

To be honest I AM surprised that nobody yet has found an effective way to control ammo, either factory ammo, or else reloaders' supplies of primers and powder.

IMHO the most dangerous threat to the Second Amendment is actually already in the US Constitution.
I am speaking of the Eighteenth Amendment. You know, "Control of Intoxicating Liqours"?
18A was REPEALED by the Twenty-First Amendment. Interesting point of law because it opens the door for ANY Amendment to be repealed by a following Amendment, LIKE SO:

Amendment XXVIII
Section 1. The Second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.


Section 2. The manufacture, storage, ownership, transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of firearms of any type is hereby prohibited.


Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several states, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the states by the Congress.

Looks pretty official doesn't it?

All I did was modify 21A to change Section I to say, "SECOND" instead of "Eighteenth". And I changed Section II a little.

Now, as scary as that piece of fictitious legislature looks, remember that it is NOT REAL and we as 2A supporters must do all in our power to prevent it from EVER being real. CAREFULLY READ THE THIRD ARTICLE! This was required in 21A and if a travesty such as the above "amendment" ever came about it would be still in the states' power to prevent it from being passed.

Read my tagline. Defending the constitution includes, preventing it from being rewritten to reduce liberty. "All enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC..."