Will guns ever be made illegal to own?

[Ferrari308]

I was reading the newspaper and there was an article about the City of Chicago trying to sue gun manufacturers because Chicago claims that guns are like cigarettes and too dangerous for any person to own. Chicago does not allow anyone to own a gun. So if anyone in these forums moved to chicago, if you took your gun you would be breaking their laws and could be arrested and have your guns taken away.

One example of that law is a guy who heard someone break into his home. The burglar stole some jewlery and ran away. The homeowner has a family, and the next night the burglar came back for more. The man heard the burglar in his daughters bedroom, so the homeowner got his handgun and shot the burglar in his leg. The police came and arrested the homeowner for owning an illegal firearm because all guns are banned. The homeowner spent the night in jail and was charged. Police found the homeowners stolen property in the burglars apartement.

What if congress passed laws like Chicago, and everyone lost the right to have a gun. What would you do? Would you secretly hide your gun and not tell anyone. Would you form an underground group? Or would you comply with the law and turn in your firearm?

I am new to guns and am reading as many posts and forums as I can. There was one thread I was reading about how before 1987 that automatic guns were legal, but then Congress banned any new automatic guns. If Congress can pass that law, who is to say they won't pass a law saying all rifles with more than 300 fps power are banned, or that any calibur bigger than .30 is banned. It appears that Congress has the power to limit what we can purchase.

The reason I am asking these questions is because the UN is pressing USA officials to join the world as a no gun nation. I know the UN has no official power over us, but I bet there are some politicians who agree with the UN. What will happen if these politicians get in power and pass a law taking away the right to own most guns?

 

[JohnKSa]

You mean "Will guns ever be made illegal to own HERE?"

It's already been done most other places...

I don't know. I think there are easier ways to shut us down. The lawsuits were a smart tactic and they surely hurt the gun industry.

Ultimately, I think that noise ordinances, hunting restrictions, EPA restrictions on shooting ranges, marginalization of competitive shooting sports by heavily restricting youth participation, etc. are what will eventually nibble us to death.

 

[M2 Carbine]

Judging by the rate that I've see us losing our 2nd amendment rights in the last 50 years I would say it would surprise me if your grandchildren are allowed to own a BB gun.

Even now we look on it as normal that states can illegally regulate and even ban guns and gun rights. We accept this and call these states "The People's Republic of *******".

Actually we gun owners deserve this kind of treatment because we don't have the backbone to fight for our rights.

It makes me sick that thousands of illegal aliens will take to the streets and influence Washington and millions of gun owners are too lazy to even vote much less demonstrate in the politician's faces.

 

[init6]

There will be a time when all guns are banned. If a city can do it now, it’s going to keep on spreading.

Maybe it's time for a million rife march on Washington DC. I don’t mean a violent one, just a demonstration that people will stand up for their rights.

 

[messiah4linux]

The UN wants our guns, tax our pay, and sales/property tax.

Rep Ron Paul Speaks http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst061906.htm

 

[Limeyfellow]

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.

Its not like the leadership here in the US need the UN to ban anything since its doing a good job on its own. We really saw this throughout the 80s and early 90s. Its getting worse all the time over the past few years especially with imports of firearms, that seems more a job to prop up failing businesses than any realisitic laws. They really let their guard down when Reagon got in power having seemingly forgotton everything he did to neuter California and we got more and more rediclous laws passed, but raving on like madmen with all this "from my dead hands" nonsense hurts the cause of firearm ownership than helps it.

 

[Ferrari308]

I've been searching the web trying to find out how a city can ban guns?? Does the 2nd amendment only apply to the federal government?

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.

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

Will guns ever be made illegal to own?

Sure, if 85% of gun owners continue to not participate politically by joining the NRA, GOA, JPFO, SAF, or any of the 2nd Amendment groups or don't bother to write, call, email, fax or even VOTE...


yeah, they'll be illegal someday. Incrementalism will take its toll.


It's a sad time for the 2nd Amendment when there is something like 60-80 MILLION individual gun owners in America, but only 4 million NRA members, and less than a million for all the other pro-RKBA groups combined.


Way to defend liberty!

 

[rangerruck]

my troll sense is tingling...

 

[Don't Tread On Me]

Yeah, I hope that's not directed toward me.

There's little sense in freaking out over the UN or other schemes when the real problem is within ourselves. We should try harder to fish in our own pond. 10% more gun owners getting even slightly political would add 6 million more to our efforts - that would more than double our political power to shut down gun control and actually, hopefully someday REPEAL past gun control.


Sometimes I wonder if trying to win over the fence-sitters and anti's is even worth it. If anyone needs winning over, it is the apathetic gun owners of this nation who think freedom is free.

 

[Ferrari308]

my troll sense is tingling...

What makes you say that? I hope it is not directed at me either.

I live in a state where guns are highly regulated. You can't even hold one in your hand without a FOID card, and cities like chicago have banned guns.

It is a slippary slope in my opinion. If Chicago can ban guns, then who is to say the city I live in won't do it next. And if cities can ban guns, then states can ban them too.

 

[Number 6]

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.

+1

Does the 2nd amendment only apply to the federal government?

The second amendment applies to all forms of government in the United States. No state or local law can supercede the constitution.

The legal way that cities are able to regulate firearms is that they are able to ban certain types of guns, but not all guns. This is allowable due to the certain interpretations of the constitution. If you read the second amendment as an absolute right then any regulation by the government upon firearm ownership would not be unconstitutional. Another interpretation of the constitution believes that the second amendment is not an absolute right, therefore reasonable regulations can be placed upon firearm ownership. A good analogy would be how the first amendment right to freedom of speech is viewed. While the first amendment states that our speech is protected, this does not give us the right to say whatever we want. We cannot threaten to kill someone, or yell "fire" in a crowed theatre. Those types of limitations are considered reasonable regulations upon our right to speech. That is part of the logic to how local governments can pass laws that regulate a protected right. The big question of the later interpretation of the constitution is when do the regulations fundamentaly violate the constitution. I am not saying I agree with it, that is just the way that one of the arguments is presented.

 

[Beachmaster]

I was reading the newspaper and there was an article about the City of Chicago trying to sue gun manufacturers because Chicago claims that guns are like cigarettes and too dangerous for any person to own.

Their very own argument is disproved by the fact that they would consider "guns" SAFE for law enforcement personel, and the military, both of which are comprised of humans, no better or worse than the average population. If guns are "too dangerous", then they would also be too dangerous for cops and soldiers.

The only thing "too dangerous" is people. Some, because they are common criminals and prey on other people for their own gain, and some because they are politicians and prey on people for their own gain.

I would rather be surrounded by common criminals, than politicians anyday!

 

[1 old 0311]

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.

 

[steve635]

Incrementalism is the enemy

Because if any level of government (other than a select few urban socialist bastions) tried to ban guns outright they would be quickly defeated by an unprecedented groundswell of public defiance. However, as long as they chip away at gun rights (i.e. the old assault rifle ban) rather than attempt a headon assault, they can convince many normally right thinking people that this is the final compromise. Then wait a year or two and introduce the next "final compromise" which only the "gun nuts" will object to. The NRA does a good job of illustrating this slippery slope, but it's hard to get your message out when the media is in bed with your opponents. I think Americans in general will always have some right to bear arms, but if we're not vigilant it could well be confined to 20" barrel bolt action rifles and 28" barrel shotguns.
On the other hand, I think a good sign is that so many red states have adopted less restrictive concealed carry laws. I can remember when in my state it was very difficult to get a CCP, now as long as you're not a felon or a psycho and can show just a smidgen of proficiency you can carry.

 

[Boom-stick]

They won't ever make them Illegal but them could make them so hard to obtain that only a few will bother (legally).

That's what they've done over here

 

[M2 Carbine]

The advantage (or disadvantage) of living through a fairly long span of time (68 years) is that you have seen change first hand.

As a young kid if I was walking down the city street with a 22 rifle, if anyone took notice at all it would be like a man saying, "Hey boy, can you hit anything with that rifle?".

Now a young kid is expelled from school if he points his finger or draws a picture of a gun.

Kids are being brainwashed in school and adults are being brainwashed by TV to think guns and everything about them is evil.

Our gun rights aren't the only thing we have lost and will continue to lose.

 

[Henry Bowman]

We cannot threaten to kill someone, or yell "fire" in a crowed theatre. Those types of limitations are considered reasonable regulations upon our right to speech. That is part of the logic to how local governments can pass laws that regulate a protected right.

Parallel limitations on firearms would be laws that say you cannot shoot at people unless it is in self-defense or you cannot shoot at a target across a public road. These are "common sense" regulations on use, not posession. 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.

 

[K-Romulus]

re:UN "freak out"

Sure, the UN hasn't put private firearms ownership on the chopping block, but that is because the current US ambassador to the UN won't stand for it. It was tried in 2001 and there was a push that failed to "git 'er done" this year, too.

Between 1/3 to over 1/2 of delegates at the UN Small Arms Conference want a global agreement on minimum laws for private ownership, based on the Australian model. http://www.iansa.org/un/review2006/documents/english/IANSA-position-paper-national-firearm-legislation.pdf

Once such an agreement is passed (by majority vote among the member states), it will be the official "global norm" for national gun laws. It is already nearly the unofficial global norm.

The US could ignore this "global norm" at it's peril. The argument is already being framed that "lax gun laws are a human rights violation." Don't underestimate the power that global social pressure may exert on a free state.

When the USSC finally hears a 2d Amendment case and decides that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is subject to "reasonable restrictions," the so-called "global norm" will be described as the standard for what is accepted as "reasonable." The USSC has used this approach in recent cases concerning other issues.

When that 2d Amendment ruling happens, and the wrong sort of legislators get elected in your state, city, or at the Fed level, kiss ALL your semi-auto or pump-action long guns goodbye, along with any pistol over .38 cal, when those legislators adopt the "reasonable, global norm of the Australian gun laws."

Oh, yeah, don't forget: under the Australian model, you must also prove a "need" for each one of the other non-banned guns you own, and self-defense is not a government-approved "need."

What kind of laws are we talking about? These are laws that are all on the books in some sort or fashion in different places around the US:

http://www.iansa.org/members/IANSA-media-briefing-low-res.pdf

Governments should agree to:
• Promote gun owner responsibility by requiring all firearms to be registered. Individuals permitted to own guns and ammunition must be held to account for their security, use and misuse.

• Define minimum criteria for private ownership of guns with a national system of licensing. These should include proven capacity to handle a gun safely; knowledge of the relevant law; age limit; proof of valid reason; and a security screening based on criminal record or history of violence, including intimate partner violence. Licences should also be required for ammunition.

• Prohibit civilian possession of military-style rifles, including semi-automatic rifles that can be converted to fully automatic fire and semi-automatic variants of military weapons.

• Block access to guns for people with a history of violence, particularly against intimate partners or family members.

• Introduce safe storage requirements to prevent gun accidents, suicide, misuse and theft.

• Regulate manufacturers and dealers. A national register of all manufacturers and their distribution network, including firearm dealers, would help prevent diversion to illicit use.

 

[NineseveN]

While the first amendment states that our speech is protected, this does not give us the right to say whatever we want. We cannot threaten to kill someone, or yell "fire" in a crowed theatre. Those types of limitations are considered reasonable regulations upon our right to speech. That is part of the logic to how local governments can pass laws that regulate a protected right.

Excerpt from an article I wrote last year:



Now, some will say, that there is no absolute freedom of speech because you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater, so the whole firearms rights issue is moot. They’ll say that you may have firearms, but there are restrictions, just like there are restrictions on the speech you are allowed to engage in. But the example of yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater is a flawed argument. That is not control; misuse or abuse of freedoms is not exercising them. The freedom is for one to be able to engage in free speech, but misusing that for unlawful purposes is not protected under the First Amendment. The same parallels can be drawn with firearms. According to the Second Amendment, we have an inalienable right to keep and bear arms. That does not mean that we can use them for unlawful purposes such as robbing a bank (against the law with or without a firearm), firing into a public crowd for no reason or shooting others without sufficient grounds for self-defense. This “fire in a crowded theater” example simply does not work because apples are being compared to oranges. You are free to say ‘fire’ all you like. You can even exclaim it in a crowded theater, so long as there truly is a fire and your intent is to inform the moviegoers for their own safety, not to cause a riot or a panic when no such condition exists, thus breaking the law. You are not free to use that word, or any other to commit a crime or endanger others. You may not use provocative speech to incite a riot. You may not use the freedom of speech as a tool for treason against the government.


Sorry, but that dog won't hunt.

 

[LightningJoe]

The general tenor of the responses seems too pessimistic. Will guns ever be made illegal? Only if you allow it. There are people in America who want Britain's gun laws. They're lying low right now, at least legislatively. They had their legislative salad days back in the sixties, seventies and eighties when an eventual gun ban seemed inevitable. Then, they faded significantly for ten years or so. Some high-profile spree killings (such as Columbine) revived their legislative hopes briefly, but that seems to have been a blip. Now, they're trying to work through the courts. Hit'em in the wallet, is their new philosophy. Lawsuits have driven some American industries into the ground (e.g. small aircraft manufacture), so maybe the gun industry can be sued into unprofitability. So far, the courts aren't helping them out much. We'll see.

 

[geekWithA.45]

Well,

Let's assume that "they" outlaw the posession of arms.

That undoes the 2nd.

The 2nd is intrinsic to the Constitution, and was a condition of the Constitution's acceptance by the states.

The constitution unravels, the Republic along with it, and all bets are off.

 

[Soybomb]

Chicago does not allow anyone to own a gun.

In all fairness to the facts, chicago has banned handguns that weren't registered before, I believe, 1983. That is not a ban on all guns.

And yes the bill of rights grants you protection from the fed but not your state, at least in practice even if we may disagree with that judgement. The 14th amendment over time has incorporated much of the bill of rights to apply to the states as well, but not the 2nd amendment. For more information google something like "bill of rights incorporation"

 

[Ferrari308]

I agree with those who believe the state won't outright ban guns, but they will continue to make it harder to obtain a gun legally. Maybe it will be in the form of higher yearly dues to obtain a FOID card. Right now it is cheap, but if the state wanted to increase the dues to $100 a year, who could stop them? Then in another couple years, the dues go up to $400 a year. The state could force all gun owners to register every gun. My one friend with a large gun collection told me he would never register his guns, because he strongly believes the second amendment was added to protect lawful citizens against a bad government. His argument is "Where would we be if our founding fathers didn't have any guns?".

 

[sturmruger]

As paranoid as people are I doubt there will ever be a Nationwide gun ban. I can see large cities or liberal states banning guns.