Disturbing News on the "Gun Control" Front

[rickyrick]

I foresee "compliant" ARs whatever that may be.

[coachteet]

I have put on my Edgar Cayce hat and have seen the following happening over the next four years:

Congress will pass an assault weapon ban more encompassing then the Clinton era ban

This is all the Obama administration will need to issue executive orders , with the consent of a cowering congress, on firearms covered by the act.

1) Ban the manufacture of these firearms
then
2) Ban the commercial sale of any existing firearms / parts / supplies
then
3) Ban the private sale of any existing firearms / parts / supplies
then
4) Require all persons wishing to purchase any firearms or ammunition to obtain a “Firearms Owners License” similar to the Michigan Firearm Owner Id Card.
then
5) Begin to tax ammunition on the level that cigarettes are taxed
then
6) Encourage state and local governments to add additional taxes on ammunition
then
7) Begin an excise tax on all firearm sales (which will increase over time)
then
8) Require manditory registration of all firearms
then
9) Order that owners of firearms listed in the ban to turn in these firearms to the government (they will not need to come after the guns as a law will be passed that says something along the line ‘possession will be a felony in involving serious prison time’). Attrition over time will take these firearms out of circulation.

The Supreme Court already has four rabidly anti gun judges on the bench. Obama will be adding at least two more during his administration. Any gun case fighting the above that appears before this new court will lose.

How does Congress passing an assault weapons ban give the President the power to issue executive orders completely eviscerating the 2nd amendment? Since when does Congress cower in awe of the president, particularly our current president? Why do you think the federal government would pass a confiscation law when they know they couldn't enforce it?

[Alabama Shooter]

There have been massive efforts to 'normalize' EBRs - calling them modern sporting rifles, etc.

That's the thing they are a fifty year old design. How can they be called "modern" at this point? The military has been using it for almost three generations.

[mattamuskeet]

So, are gun owners going to bring nothing to the table in the coming debate? It seems like we don't have much of a 'lever' to demand anything...I know that people say that once it starts, there will be no end to it; and that we cannot give even an inch, as they will take a mile. But, what about the analogy of a tree that is able to bend and sway in the wind so as to not break?

So, do we not have ANY proposal to change gun laws in any way? I know that additional gun laws would not have prevented the recent tragedies, but it also seems that change is coming, regardless. I think what they want is for "assault weapons" to be less ubiquitous and more expensive, making them more like SBRs, fully automatic firearms, and sound suppressors. I don't think I have ever heard of one of these being used in a crime. Why? Because it takes money to own them and balls to walk in and get the sheriff to sign off. The gun enthusiasts who have them don't commit crimes. Should we be willing to bend on this issue? What if we were willing to bend, and we got less restrictive regulation of SBRs and suppressors in return? I don't know; and I am willing to stand where the NRA tells me to stand, even to go down with the ship. But I am thinking that maybe us gun owners should equip ourselves with some kind of 'lever' so that we don't get totally steamrolled.

I realize that our 'lever' has ever been the 2nd amendment but it wouldn't hurt to have another.

[Alabama Shooter]

After all the flack the NRA took over micro stamping study I think they are not interested in bringing anything new in.

[MLeake]

mattamuskeet, what I would bring to the table would be the list of laws already in effect, that are not enforced, and the suggestion that just maybe they should enforce them.

Bending right now would be stupid.

[Tom Servo]

Should we be willing to bend on this issue? What if we were willing to bend, and we got less restrictive regulation of SBRs and suppressors in return?

Absolutely not. The problem here is that we're not going to get anything in return beyond the hollow promise that they won't try to take more in the future.

Let's say we agreed to have "assault" rifles lumped in with the NFA in return for the restrictions being loosened on, say, suppressors. A year or two later, there would be a call to tighten those restrictions back up, and we'd be worse off than we were before.

We've already given plenty and gotten nothing in return. No thanks.

I am thinking that maybe us gun owners should equip ourselves with some kind of 'lever' so that we don't get totally steamrolled.

Who says that's going to happen? We're in a position to hold firm and refuse just about anything, and that's where we need to stay.

[Dr Big Bird PhD]

I will be damned if a single person comes to take my weapon or asks me for an additional tax

[SPEMack618]

Former Congresswoman Giffords and her husband forming this new PAC scares the bejesus out of me.

Also, former (some would say disgraced) General McCrystal speaking out about the over lethality of the .223 makes me want to rip the U.S. Army patch of off my range bag.

[nazshooter]

Mattamuskeet: Unfortunately the other side isn't interested in any sort of compromise except in the sense of how much we will allow them to take.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

[spanishjames]

There's no way the other side would give up some slack on suppressors. If assault rifles can "rip a deer to shreds", then "silent assasins" will also walk the streets and rule the night with their silencers.

[44 AMP]

It is NOT a case of needing to be a tree that bends in the wind, which automatically assumes the anti's arguments (the wind) are inevitable and overpowering.

What it is, is a case of throwing yet another baby out of the sleigh, in the hopes the wolves will eat and go away.

They will eat. Gladly. But they do not go away.

And knowing that you will feed them, only makes them more aggressive and hungry.

Now, some of the babies that have already been eaten have been our flesh and blood, and dear to us, because of it. And we still suffer from their loss.

We are well past the point of expendable relatives. And even if you still have someone you are willing to throw to the wolves, I no longer do. And furthermore I am unwilling to allow you to be thrown out, on principle. Nor, will I jump out to save you. Because it wouldn't work, anyway.

No matter what argument you come up with for lightening the sleigh, the fact is that our horses cannot run faster than the law allows. And those who are urging "compromise" are simply ignoring the reality in the hopes that they won't be the next one out of the sleigh. False hopes, but stong and sincere ones.

There are other analogies involving wolves, and the wolves know them. That is why they are in such a hurry to eat us, before other factors can come into play.

[rickyrick]

ABC news reported President Obama plans on using executive orders. Looking for it in print.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The report I heard was that he was going to instruct federal agencies to tighten up in the failures to implement in current laws, implementing the mental health provisions of NICS.

Unless we have a concrete order, let's not go off on this.

Listening to the news this morning, I heard an ex-legislator from Arkansas discuss how the hunters can be split off from the gun nutsos. You don't need 47 rounds to shoot a deer or you can go to the range, she drawled.

That is going to be a big point - hunting is mildly acceptable as will be skeet. Other guns are for lunatics.

Thus, the tool argument or sports arguments will be losing strategies and simply pandering.

[ClydeFrog]

I have serious doubts about "Big Stan". He got burned with the Pat Tillman mess too.
I heard a lot of OEF troops couldn't stand him. He reportedly only eats 1 meal a day & while in charge of US forces, cut all the fast food & MWR outlets in Afganistan(Subway, Burger King, Starbucks, etc).
Many spec-ops & SEALs call the 5.56mm the "poodle shooter". Many set up custom 7.62 rifles for "business".
The new 6.8SPCII got a lot of press too in the 2000s but it's seems to drop off now(2013).

ClydeFrog

[Alabama Shooter]

The report I heard was that he was going to instruct federal agencies to tighten up in the failures to implement in current laws, implementing the mental health provisions of NICS.

I see a big reversal in gun rights for veterans. The same vets that came back from wars with PTSD and emotional problems who were fine to handle weapons in previous generations will now be disallowed. This after first being told that nothing would happen to them...

[ClydeFrog]

I disagree with AS.
I'm a US armed forces veteran & get VA benefits. I, for one, do not support veterans having diagnosed mental health disorders, obtaining 100% VA disability(saying they can't work or hold a job), taking medications then claiming they can hunt or carry loaded firearms concealed without any problems.
I'm sorry, but you can't be crazy when you feel like it or get federal benefits for PTSD/bi-polar/TBIs etc then think you can safely handle a loaded firearm.
These are just my personal views. If it was a voter issue & passed(allowing veterans with mental health issues to carry concealed or hunt), I could live with it.
FWIW; I disagreed with allowing concealed firearms in bars/nightclubs but VA's new law later showed a decrease in gun crimes in bars-restaurants after the law passed.

Clyde

[243winxb]

AR 15 type guns & magazines will go the way of machine guns. They will be classified as NFA, with no new production for civilians.

[coachteet]

AR 15 type guns & magazines will go the way of machine guns. They will be classified as NFA, with no new production for civilians.

That would be pretty far fetched, not only in how unlikely it would be to ban "AR 15 type" rifles politically/legislatively, but in that it is impractical. First off, you have to define what defines an "AR15 type" rifle. It would work about as well as the definition of "assault weapon" did in 1994-2004. Here is the description:

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
-Folding or telescoping stock
-Pistol grip
-Bayonet mount
-Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
-Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
-Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
-Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
-Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
-A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
-Folding or telescoping stock
-Pistol grip
-Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
-Detachable magazine.

The definition is laughable, because the characteristics do not really alter the way the rifle functions in a meaningful way. It's even funnier, because these characteristics are what are required to distinguish an "assault rifle" from a... I guess a "non-assault rifle" (lol). Gun manufacturers just altered their products cosmetically to get around the definition. Short of banning all semi-auto rifles, banning "AR15 type" rifles isn't really possible. Functionally, the AR15 or semi-auto AK47 aren't different from any other semi-auto rifle. They all do the same thing. And, by the way, the antis know this. You can be sure someone explained this to Joe Biden.

This is why I doubt this administration is going to try to reinstate a ban on "Assault Weapons".

I think the focus of any proposed legislation is going to be on high cap mags, mental health and the outside chance of a gun/ammo registry.

[Alabama Shooter]

I'm sorry, but you can't be crazy when you feel like it or get federal benefits for PTSD/bi-polar/TBIs etc then think you can safely handle a loaded firearm.
These are just my personal views.

I agree these states seem incongruent. In some cases it is very likely true.

[dlb435]

This may be a dumb idea, but what about a national firearms permit?
With this permit you could buy/sell a firearm and buy ammo or primers.
You could sell in a private sale to any other permit holder. This could also be used as a concelled carry permit were legal.
You get the permit automatically if you are law enforcement, active military or discharged military with an honorable discharge. All other must go through gun safety and firearms training at their own expense. Those trained will have to have at least three trainers. Any trainer may flag a trainee as "unstable" and require a review process before the permit is issued.
All those with criminal records, no honorable discharge or mental health issues will be disqualified.
I know that we view firearms ownership as a right, not a privilege so there might be some difficulty in crafting legislation.

[coachteet]

I don't see any advantage at all for the permit you are describing. It also goes a long way toward changing the 2nd amendment to a privilege, not a right I was born with.

[dlb435]

Yes, my point excactly. But some system that controls access of firearms to the qualified is needed. It would be better than than gun bans that do nothing and you would not need to wait on a check before buting a gun. You would only need to check that the permit is valid. Maybe we could call it a license and you would have to pay a small tax to get it. You already have to pay a tax to get a class three weapon. The governments right to tax is well estabished.

[kenny87ky]

I think what he may be trying to get at is more or less a portable pre wrote background check under the disguise as a "license". If there is no requirement to have it in order to own a firearm nor any kind of registration or cost, with its only use being to buy a gun from a dealer then that's more or less what it would amount to.

Then again why can't I just show my drivers license and let the dealer call me in from that, there is no reason for me to fill out a form if I have some ID that verifies who I am and the dealer has to call to make sure I'm ok anyway. of course with the form they have all those questions that may get an unknowing person into a "lying on a federal form" trap if they happen to be prohibited and don't know it.

[mrbatchelor]

Originally Posted by kenny87ky

I think what he may be trying to get at is more or less a portable pre wrote background check under the disguise as a "license"....

Don't call it a license. I'm beginning to see a lot of sense in refusing to uncouple 2A and 1A rights. Do you need a license to write a letter to the editor bitching about some government policy - like maybe bombing US citizens without trials.

This is a tough nut to crack no doubt. But we'd better be damned careful about language. The words matter.