The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 6, 2013, 12:41 AM   #326
mack59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 409
150 billion if all guns were turned in?

But really I doubt it would cost much - how many do you think would actually be turned in? And any that were not turned in immediately would cost nothing to confiscate later, at least monetarily.
mack59 is offline  
Old January 6, 2013, 01:37 AM   #327
Alabama Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2012
Location: Sweet Home
Posts: 886
Quote:
Even a conservative CBO estimate of the cost would give most politicians pause.
I don't think so. They have no qualms about borrowing into 100% of the GDP to meet other political goals certainly this will not bother anyone. Barely a rounding error on the debt really. Someone, somewhere will pay for it someday but not the current guys running things.
__________________
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
Alabama Shooter is offline  
Old January 6, 2013, 01:55 AM   #328
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
The idea of forfeiture without compensation would also raise some serious 5th Amendment concerns.
Here is an interesting (albeit pre-Heller and McDonald) analysis of the Takings Clause in relation to a firearms ban.
gc70 is offline  
Old January 6, 2013, 03:07 AM   #329
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 2,089
Quote:
The second, the diminution in value test, argues that government regulation is a taking
when it so restricts the use of property that little of its value remains to the
owner.
I'm not sure how this reads . Does it say the government can't be the cause of the property no longer having value ? or because the property no longer has value , there can be no just compensation ? Even though the law they past is the very thing that caused your property to no longer have value .
__________________
As of this date 8-18-14 at 6:42am I became a proud grandfather I guess I'm officially old
Metal god is offline  
Old January 7, 2013, 11:54 AM   #330
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,841
Another killer of ducks always your kids to be defenseless against killers:

“I’m a hunter, believe in Second Amendment rights. But you know what? I don’t need an assault weapon to shoot a duck,” Rep. Rick Nolan (D-Minn.) said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “And I think they ought to be banned, and I think we need to put a ban on the amount of shells you can carry in a magazine and I think we have to strengthen our background checks.”


Save the ducks!
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old January 7, 2013, 12:44 PM   #331
breakingcontact
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2012
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 736
The founding fathers started Ducks Unlimited and Pheasants Forever don't you know?
breakingcontact is offline  
Old January 7, 2013, 12:46 PM   #332
breakingcontact
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2012
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 736
I'm looking forward to seeing how this whole thing plays out in the Senate/House.

I don't enjoy the anxiety.

Hopefully things will just die in committee or be hammered down with a vote from those who believe in the Constitution.

I read an article the other day, they want it done by the end of January?

So when should we expect to see some votes on this in Congress?
breakingcontact is offline  
Old January 7, 2013, 02:10 PM   #333
Fishing_Cabin
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 10, 2010
Posts: 717
Quote:
Save the ducks!
Unfortunatly the hunting group fails to recognize that not only do they not "need" firearms to hunt, but there are people out there who already hunt using other weapons, so to speak. Bows are the number one but there is also other primitive types of weapons I seem to find primitive hunters either interested in, or using in some fashion.

So, with that said, I have to ask, why dont those hunters feel the need to use something other then a firearm to hunt? The answer would be it is effective to use a firearm, but also requires less skill then say a bow or other primitive weapons. If that is indeed true, then why are we not only restricting, but also expecting those law abiding americans to defend theirself with a less effective weapon?

Many of these americans for one reason or another have varying levels of fitness, but also handicaps and others physical issues which would make it almost impossible to use certain primitive weapons. The issue isnt just do we "need" an AR-15, or standard capacity mags, its also about do those of us, law abiding americans who have some sort of physical issue that restricts them, that should be entitled to adequate, proper tools for self defense.

It would be one thing to restrict an average, fit, american, to a 10 round mag, but its another to restrict another who is bound to a wheel chair, and has only 1 good arm to use to a 10 round mag and expect that same wheel chair bound person to be able to reload quickly and defend theirself, when a standard, full capacity mag would be better.

We would be essentially discriminating against those in society who are restricted due to physical issues for whatever reason.

Also, it we can look at the mental health aspect in a similar way. There are many folks out there who feel that any variation from the norm is a mental health issue. While I do support increase of reporting of serious mental health issues to NICS, and I do support increasing mental health programs, we need to not only define what is "serious" and what is just a minor abnormality...

Ive known and dealt with folks personally, who feel strongly about keeping those folks, some with extremely minor mental issues, some as small minor learning disabilities, seperate from others and or discriminate against them, because they are not the "norm" as they see it. Ive never known 2 people exactly alike to be honest, so we should expect minor variations in people and embrace that difference. I bring up this point because we need to keep those who have a real potential for violence restricted, but we should not let the line drop down to where it includes anyone outside of a narrow norm.

Last edited by Fishing_Cabin; January 7, 2013 at 02:20 PM. Reason: spelling
Fishing_Cabin is offline  
Old January 7, 2013, 02:12 PM   #334
Dr Big Bird PhD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 778
Quote:
Here is an interesting (albeit pre-Heller and McDonald) analysis of the Takings Clause in relation to a firearms ban.
Please summarize

As to the "In common use" reference. I would find it impossible to NOT say that ARs and AKs are in common use. The amount sold since the Sandy Hook shooting alone should prove common use, let alone the 4+ million ARs before then.

On a secondary thought, does anyone have any statistics on the amount of firearms sold since the shooting?
__________________
I told the new me,
"Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'"
But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back."
Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor
Dr Big Bird PhD is offline  
Old January 7, 2013, 02:17 PM   #335
Ben Towe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 6, 2009
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 1,122
It's not Feinstein, but Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va) has introduced the NRA Members' Gun Safety Act of 2013 (H.R.21) requiring background checks for all firearms transfers. Anyone know if this has any actual NRA support, or is it creative wording to imply such?

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tx) has introduced the Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2013 (H.R.65) which will raise the age limit of semiautomatic "assault weapon" ownership to 21 and require all guns to be sold with a safety device. See Tom Servo's earlier link to read the bills in their entirety (I don't know how to put it in this post).
__________________
'Merica: Back to back World War Champs
Ben Towe is offline  
Old January 7, 2013, 02:47 PM   #336
Dr Big Bird PhD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 778
Quote:
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tx) has introduced the Child Gun Safety and Gun Access Prevention Act of 2013 (H.R.65) which will raise the age limit of semiautomatic "assault weapon" ownership to 21 and require all guns to be sold with a safety device. See Tom Servo's earlier link to read the bills in their entirety (I don't know how to put it in this post).
The Gun Control proposal from Texas would be the least intrusive. My hometown is within 30 minutes of Sheila Jackson. To say that a lot more people hate her than like her is an understatement.

Edit: I fail to see how either of these provisions would even marginally alter these disasters. The legislators are grasping at straws.
__________________
I told the new me,
"Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'"
But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back."
Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor
Dr Big Bird PhD is offline  
Old January 7, 2013, 05:01 PM   #337
breakingcontact
Junior member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2012
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 736
The lame safety device they include with guns plus a leatherman equals a safety device no more.

Its not about safety. Its about incremental control. Raise the age on this. Force the maker to include that. They can't or won't kick down the door. So they get their foot in the door. Then their leg and so on.

Meanwhile they are all showing their posteriors.

Anyone OK with a 10 round mag limit...needs to get ready for a 5 round limit then a single shot limit.
breakingcontact is offline  
Old January 7, 2013, 05:35 PM   #338
Dr Big Bird PhD
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 778
Im in complete agreement with you, I was just remarking that the lease restrictive bill came from Texas and I found that slightly fitting.
__________________
I told the new me,
"Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'"
But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back."
Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor
Dr Big Bird PhD is offline  
Old January 7, 2013, 08:26 PM   #339
TPAW
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2005
Posts: 2,860
Quote:
It will ban the same for big clips
I always thought they were called magazines........Yeah, she knows what she's talking about........
TPAW is offline  
Old January 7, 2013, 09:06 PM   #340
hounddawg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 1, 2009
Posts: 760
considering that the recent fiscal cliff bill was just a band aid that kicked the can down the road for 2 months does anyone really thing something as controversial as some of the proposals being made will ever pass ? Last time I looked both the Senate and the House had to pass a bill fro it to be sent to the President and I don't think even he would try a executive order on this one. Now if the libs get control of the House in 2014 then it is possible and even likely
__________________
Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other. - Ronald Reagan
hounddawg is offline  
Old January 7, 2013, 09:13 PM   #341
Daugherty16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 10, 2008
Location: Live Free or Die state
Posts: 259
Diane Feinstein says she has been "looking at pictures of guns" in order to write a ban bill. Apparently she thinks that will give her an informed position. At least she will be in a position to judge which ones look scary.

So her ban will only cover guns that are: made of polymer, stainless steel, stamped metal or blued metal, if it can fire one or more rounds of real live ammunition, if it looks like a real gun, if it almost looks like a real gun,if it can be concealed within a holster or a 7' box, if it is sold as a rifle, shotgun, pistol, revolver, derringer, automatic, semiautomatic, single shot, double barrel, pump, lever, bolt, falling block, single action, double action or muzzle loader, it will be banned.

Everything else will be okay to own.

Gives me a real sense of pride in the intellectual honesty of our elected representatives.
__________________
"To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness... How pathetic." - - Ted Nugent

"Cogito, Ergo Armitum Sum" - (I Think, Therefore I Am Armed)- - anon.
Daugherty16 is offline  
Old January 7, 2013, 09:22 PM   #342
hounddawg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 1, 2009
Posts: 760
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...me_693916.html

a lot of huffing and puffing for naught. It is amusing watching the idiots on the private gun sales sites trying to sell that 700 dollar AR that could not shoot a 2 inch group at 50 yards for 2K though
__________________
Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other. - Ronald Reagan
hounddawg is offline  
Old January 7, 2013, 09:25 PM   #343
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,841
Not to get too political but Jackson introducing a seemingly weaker bill and because she is from TX has no causal relationship. She is not a friend of the RKBA.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old January 7, 2013, 09:38 PM   #344
hounddawg
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 1, 2009
Posts: 760
politicians can introduce all the bills they want, that is their job and how they try to convince people they deserve re election. Only a few of them ever get tabled. Do you know how many bills never even make it to the floor because they get lost in committee or if they make it out they do not get tabled ?

do some brushing up on your civics folks and quit letting the fear mongers on both sides get your bowels in a knot. It is ok to be concerned but don't panic over every news article or take it like every proposal will ever become law
__________________
Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other. - Ronald Reagan
hounddawg is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 12:12 PM   #345
sigcurious
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 25, 2011
Posts: 1,755
Quote:
*** Two options on gun measures: The White House has a self-imposed deadline of the end of this month to come up with some tangible items. They can go one of two ways: (1) Incremental (magazines and mental-health screenings): This will show the White House trying to create proposals that can pass, but there will be a lot of disappointed people, or (2) Bolder (really pushing for reinstating the assault-weapons ban, mandatory background checks of all purchases, including private sales, a national gun ownership database): But the risk of the bold approach is that it can’t pass Congress. It’s a bit of a political box for the White House; they’d like to do something, and there is a chance to “do something,” but what is possible and what some gun-control advocates really want are not in the same ballpark.
Source

This to me really sums up the current situation. "Something" may happen, but it's not nearly as dire as it seems.
sigcurious is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 12:19 PM   #346
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,841
MSBC babblers think the Administration will go for the whole shebang and then settle for something less.

The tightening of mental health checks, reporting and NICS for private sales at gun shows are good bets.

I have a whacky theory that the administration knows that truly draconian bills would not pass. Thus, they don't want to waste effort on a long term effort on a losing proposition. Go for something now, get what you can. If you lose on something, you can say you tried. Blame it on the nuts and use it for the 2014 campaign if it has traction. Or forget it and say well we tried.

So get it over with now and move on.

I also think that the NICS thing can be played to some advantage and expansion of gun rights as I said elsewhere.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc.
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...05_Feature.htm
Being an Academic Shooter
http://www.teddytactical.com/archive...11_Feature.htm
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 12:42 PM   #347
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,479
I think it would be wise to keep in mind Obama sent 400K as the tax relief cap. Boehner tried to send back 1 million, failed, and caved, at which point Obama got 400K, 450 for couples.
JimDandy is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 01:07 PM   #348
Metal god
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 10, 2012
Location: San Diego CA
Posts: 2,089
Quote:
Administration will go for the whole shebang and then settle for something less.
I think this is accurate . The AWB summery seems to be contradicting it self

Quote:
Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
120 specifically-named firearms;

Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test;
Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test;
If they are going to ban them all from being mad why is the a characteristic test for gun that are not being made

Quote:
Bans the sale, TRANSFER , importation, or manufacturing

Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
Background check of owner and any transferee
If the bill bans all transferring of said weapons and you can not hand them down then why do they want a back ground check on grandfathered weapons when transfered . To me it seems they built the compromises right in
__________________
As of this date 8-18-14 at 6:42am I became a proud grandfather I guess I'm officially old
Metal god is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 01:16 PM   #349
Battler
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2000
Posts: 1,185
The Tax/Cliff/Tax business had a built-in deadline or artificial deadline, and thus urgency. The AWB is the exact opposite, the longer it gets dragged out the more people forget about any given mass shooting and go back to posting pictures of cats.

"Do nothing at all" is an option here, and for many the preferred one.
Battler is offline  
Old January 9, 2013, 02:21 PM   #350
mayosligo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 301
Fox News is reporting that the Vice President Biden suggested Wednesday that the White House could take unilateral action on gun control, as he kicked off a round of meetings aimed at finding ways to curb gun violence.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...#ixzz2HVXXFzZ6
mayosligo is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.16995 seconds with 10 queries