The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old November 9, 2012, 02:31 PM   #76
Sparks1957
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 4, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,471
It is unfortunate to read Ayoob writing that. Seriously, do we really think the government will go after the millions of guns out there when the executive branch was elected by such a thin margin? Who is going to go door-to-door to collect them? No one in their right mind, that's who.

Too many REAL problems out there needing attention first. Should we be vigilant? Of course.
Sparks1957 is offline  
Old November 9, 2012, 03:36 PM   #77
zxcvbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,200
Quote:
Feinstein’s rumored bill “would ban pistol grips and "high-capacity" magazines, eliminate any grandfathering and ban sales of ‘weapons in possession’" Shepherd writes
Any such ban would be an ex-post facto law, and also violate the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment, and the Due Process clause of the 14th.

She's probably up to something, but she's not that stupid.
__________________
"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun"
zxcvbob is offline  
Old November 9, 2012, 04:46 PM   #78
pnac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 330
My take is the Obama administration will use the same tactics to go after firearms as they're using to shut down the coal and natural gas industries, i.e., use the regulatory agencies to put the manufacturers out of business or to make the cost prohibitive to the consumer instead of a more direct approach of bans or confiscation.
__________________
In my hour of darkness
In my time of need
Oh Lord grant me vision
Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons
pnac is offline  
Old November 9, 2012, 05:04 PM   #79
Ben Towe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 6, 2009
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 1,120
Ayoob shouldn't have written that. There's a lot of hype in that piece, but I think I know why. The lobbyist groups and high profile individuals in the gun industry know that if the fear stays high they keep gun owners vigilant. If they quit talking about it Joe Public may lose interest and become complacent. I don't agree with the tactic, but I understand it, and the anti-gun establishment makes it easy to do.

One rabid anti-gunner or another cooks up some insane piece of legislation every time Congress is in session, they always have, but they don't gain traction because they cannot get the support needed. They're simply feeding their base. Pelosi, Feinstein, Boxer, and others that come from heavily anti-gun and extreme liberal districts and states could introduce anything and still get elected. That's what their constituents want, so they do it. Then they can go campaign and say "I introduced legislation to get these evil guns off the streets, but my right wing, bloodthirsty gun nut fellow lawmakers refused to help me enact any reasonable regulations to curb the violence because they're in the NRA's pocket, but I will keep trying as long as you keep sending me back." Etcetera, ad. nauseum.
__________________
'Merica: Back to back World War Champs
Ben Towe is offline  
Old November 9, 2012, 06:02 PM   #80
UtahHunting
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 26, 2009
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 424
I am not going to read every response up to this point but I will throw in my 2 cents. I will probably get crucified for this but so be it, we all have different opinions on the matter.

I don't see anything happening to guns or ammo the next 4 years. I could be wrong, but they have a lot more to worry about on the table rather than take the time to vote on a ban.

I am an independent but generally lean democrat. I own a small arsenal of weapons including "black guns" that would put some small gun dealers to shame. I have what I consider to be a lifetime supply of ammo "just in case". And guess what there are others out there just like me.

I think the NRA is an extreme and unreasonable group at times. I think the extreme leftists are unreasonable as well. However I am not against making it slightly more difficult to obtain firearms. Here where I live one can buy a gun off of the classifieds with no ID and no background check. In my opinion that is just crazy. It makes it extremely easy for felons to get guns here.

I lived through the Clinton era. I live in a gun friendly state and didn't really notice much difference in obtaining firearms. Yes steel jacketed Chinese ammo was banned from import and the price on "black guns" went artificially up and without reason if you ask me. We all made it through and it just wasn't that bad. In fact the Clinton years were the best financial years of my life but that is for another discussion.

Any how, I know I am in the minority on this board but I just wanted to throw that out there and let the new comers to the sport know the end of the world is not here and I don't see much if any restrictions on firearms the next 4 years.
UtahHunting is offline  
Old November 9, 2012, 10:49 PM   #81
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,396
Quote:
I may be wrong about this, but it seems that Bush exploited something of a loop hole, or gap, in the law and Constitution when he issued an executive order directed at firearms imported from foreign nations.
Actually, he just exploited the "sporting purpose" clause in 18 U.S.C. 925(d)(3). The ATF had made two prior rulings (94-1 & 94-2) in 1984 that the Striker-12 and Street Sweeper shotguns were not eligible for import because they were not “particularly suitable for sporting purposes.” The same study leading to that was the one that ruled police competition and practical shooting competitions didn't count.

Having seen those rulings withstand scrutiny and challenge (which was faint at best), they pressured Bush to apply the same standard to "assault rifles." At the time, the idea of banning the importation of high-capacity mags had also been bandied around, but was rejected.

In truth, there was never an EO. Bush informally directed the ATF to enforce the new interpretation.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe

Last edited by Tom Servo; November 10, 2012 at 01:05 AM.
Tom Servo is offline  
Old November 10, 2012, 01:02 AM   #82
zxcvbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,200
Quote:
Actually, he just exploited the "sporting purpose" clause in 18 U.S.C. 925(d)(3)
I'm surprised nobody has challenged that clause yet, based on U.S. v. Miller (1939)
__________________
"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun"
zxcvbob is offline  
Old November 10, 2012, 09:25 AM   #83
seeker_two
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 31, 2002
Location: Deep in the Heart of the Lone Star State (TX)
Posts: 1,726
Hopefully, SAF can get a "sporting purposes" case to SCOTUS before Obama can nominate any more judges....
__________________
Proud member of Gun Culture 2.0......
seeker_two is offline  
Old November 10, 2012, 10:14 AM   #84
jmortimer
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
^ I completely agree, but we keep getting told that it does not matter who is president and that nothing, absolutely nothing, bad would ever happen post this November 2012 election. We shall see, but I'm stupid and think some bad things will happen. Hope I'm wrong.
jmortimer is offline  
Old November 10, 2012, 11:48 AM   #85
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,501
Quote:
My take is the Obama administration will... make the cost prohibitive to the consumer instead of a more direct approach of bans or confiscation.
My thoughts exactly. At the risk of planting ideas in the minds of the opposition, I have a hunch that future AWB-type legislation may take the form of taxes on "evil" features rather than an outright ban. Reasons:
  • In the post-Heller legal environment, the chances of surviving a court challenge are better for a taxation scheme modeled on the NFA, which is pretty much settled law, than for a Clinton AWB-style outright ban on commonly possessed items.
  • Memories of the rampant profiteering on "pre-ban" items during the original AWB will trigger an epic buying frenzy before a theoretical "AWB II" goes into effect. This will result in a short-term increase in the number of banned items in circulation. OTOH let's say that a $5 tax will be imposed on so-called "hi-cap" magazines. There would be limited incentive for people to panic-buy if the mags will remain available, just at a slightly higher price.
  • Numerous conservative state legislatures have recently imposed "sin taxes" on items like cigarettes to close budget deficits. A similar mild taxation scheme could siphon off enough left-leaning but fiscally conservative moderates to get the measure through the House.
  • Even if the measure is virtually worthless as a ban and/or a revenue-raising measure, it could be sold to the far left of the President's party as a mere first step, as with the PPACA.
Vigilance is the key.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old November 10, 2012, 12:33 PM   #86
Rifleman1952
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 1, 2012
Location: Ohio
Posts: 246
I think part of the cause for my concern is that I have relatives who currently live, or lived in states at one time, that are very hostile towards gun owners. I have witnessed, second hand, how overzealous anti-gun politicians have enacted laws that seem contrary to our Constitution at the state and local level. It seems that the politicians who are most vociferous in their hostility towards firearms, like Senator Charles Schumer of New York, are almost unbeatable in their districts. I hope that I'm wrong, but sometimes it seems that election results, like occurred last Tuesday, embolden politicians like Schumer, to resurrect and lead the fight against firearms owners. We, firearms owners, need to wait and see what happens, but we must be vigilant and ready to act as a group in lobbying efforts with our congressmen and senators through phone calls and letters and spreading the word to those who may not pay attention to current events. Whether you own firearms for hunting, sport, or self-defense. we must stay and work together to protect our rights and freedoms.

Last edited by Rifleman1952; November 10, 2012 at 04:40 PM.
Rifleman1952 is offline  
Old November 11, 2012, 08:54 AM   #87
Hal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 7,435
Quote:
But the fact is Obama is now unencumbered, by having to be re-elected. Don't be surprised if we start hearing about "common sense & reasonable" gun control in the near future. Obama sincerely believes that crime can be reduced by making the public's access to firearms more difficult and expensive
(Emphasis mine)..
I agree 100% - that's Mr. Obama's preferred method of control - price (or tax or fine) it into nonexistance.

What's sad, is he's getting exactly his way in that regard without even having to lift a finger.
Hal is offline  
Old November 11, 2012, 09:32 AM   #88
Sparks1957
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 4, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,471
Quote:
My take is the Obama administration will... make the cost prohibitive to the consumer instead of a more direct approach of bans or confiscation
If he does try any attempt at gun control, it will be through means such as taxation or fees.
Sparks1957 is offline  
Old November 11, 2012, 09:47 AM   #89
thallub
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 2,109
Quote:
In truth, there was never an EO. Bush informally directed the ATF to enforce the new interpretation.
Bingo!!! Every gun owner should be aware of this fact.
thallub is online now  
Old November 11, 2012, 10:16 AM   #90
Strafer Gott
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,132
If politicians endorsed by our beloved NRA do unto us vis-a-vi Bush and his ban, does this not severely weaken the endorsement? Why wasn't the Clinton ban reversed by Bush? In my view the NRA uses political rhetoric as fact, in a money raising scheme, and is just another business in the growth industry of politics.
Strafer Gott is offline  
Old November 11, 2012, 04:33 PM   #91
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 2,757
Quote:
In my view the NRA uses political rhetoric as fact, in a money raising scheme, and is just another business in the growth industry of politics.
While I agree that the NRA does indeed engage in a certain amount of hyperbole in some of their statements I also think they do a pretty good job of keep us informed. As an average citizen I have neither the access nor the resources to follow every anti-2A effort on a national level. I receive several updates each week many focused on my specific State and I find these quite helpful.

As for using this information for fundraising I wonder what else they would use. In other words if there were no threat to our freedom what conceivable reason would anyone have for supporting them? Yes, maybe gun safety, but really they are an advocacy group and that is why they publicize those efforts.
__________________
A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
- Milton Friedman
BarryLee is online now  
Old November 11, 2012, 09:11 PM   #92
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,396
Quote:
If politicians endorsed by our beloved NRA do unto us vis-a-vi Bush and his ban, does this not severely weaken the endorsement?
Politicians break promises. It's practically part of the job description. At the time of the endorsement, Bush looked to be a supporter of the RKBA. It was only after the Stockton shooting that Bennett pushed him into accepting the idea of an import ban.

Another example would be Kristen Gilliabrand, who appeared to be our friend until she landed in office.

Quote:
Why wasn't the Clinton ban reversed by Bush?
Because the President can't repeal an act of congress by fiat. This takes us right back to why executive orders need to be circumscribed.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old November 11, 2012, 10:04 PM   #93
JimPage
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 21, 2010
Location: Rome, NY
Posts: 636
Tom: "In truth, there was never an EO. Bush informally directed the ATF to enforce the new interpretation."

I watched Treasury Secretary (? Maybe he was atf. long ago) announce that street sweeper was declared an "explosive device." I was disgusted.
__________________
Jim Page

Cogito, ergo armatum sum
JimPage is offline  
Old November 11, 2012, 10:22 PM   #94
jmortimer
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
Here is a Fact - No Surprise

"US guns sales soar after Barack Obama's re-election"
Article from the 11-11-2012 Telegraph UK
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-election.html
No surprise and it will stay this way for quite a while. There must be a lot of stupid or smart people out there. I do know that I would rather have a safe full of firearms than paper dollar bills as long as the Fed is printing $$$ out of thin air and buying bonds with money printed out of thin air. As the owner of Survival Blog pointed out for 11-13-2012 blog:
"Consider: The used Macintosh II computer that I bought for $875 in 1990 is now worth perhaps $5 in scrap metal value, but the used stainless steel Colt Gold Cup .45 pistol that I bought for $400 in 1990 is now worth around $1,100."
jmortimer is offline  
Old November 12, 2012, 10:07 AM   #95
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,736
That is because if firearms tech had progressed as computer tech has done, the Colt would also be worth $5 - unless it was a collectible.
__________________
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 online now  
Old November 14, 2012, 09:45 AM   #96
Kimio
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2011
Location: Utah
Posts: 911
Given the current climate of things, how long do you suspect the "panic" is going to last? In 2008 as I understand it, there was quite a "doomsday" attitude about how the world was coming to an end and Obama would be the greatest disaster to have ever of hit America and the law abiding gun owners of this country (Exaggerations of course).

Someone in a thread I had previously created said perhaps a year or so?

I know my LGS is making an absolute killing right now in terms of sales. I went down there about a week ago to check out a C75 compact I've been eyeing for the past few months only to find out that they had completely sold out of them within the past few days!

Hopefully things stableize soon, it's going to be a major pain or so it seems to get anything firearms related if this keeps up.

Last edited by Tom Servo; November 17, 2012 at 08:18 AM. Reason: Slight language issue
Kimio is offline  
Old November 17, 2012, 01:29 AM   #97
5whiskey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 1,561
Good grief, I hate politics.

Many others have stated this already, and I want to repeat it. There are way more important things on the plate of our elected officials than gun control at this point. I don't mean to make light of our constitutional RKBA, as it is very important to me, but I am actually more worried about our countries economic future than anything.

With this being said, if any of the czars came up with a back door way to make purchasing firearms or ammunition more inconvenient I don't doubt that our president would sign off on it. As others have said, we must remain vigilant. I do think supreme court appointments are an important issue and we shouldn't make light of this. You never can tell how an SCOTUS justice will vote, but Sotomayor has certainly been pretty predictable thus far. The damage is limited in that the legislative branch of government is split between two parties. Checks and balances (or partisan bickering) at it's finest.

Really, my biggest concern is whether or not the price of firearms skyrockets or not. In addition, I would really love for ammo and components to not be as scarce as they were in late '08 and most of '09. That would be nice. It's really not that real. There's no need to hoard. Not a bad idea to keep a decent supply on hand, but you don't need a lifetime supply of practice ammo on hand.
5whiskey is offline  
Old November 19, 2012, 11:26 PM   #98
lamarw
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 12, 2010
Location: Lake Martin, AL
Posts: 1,792
Wake Up America! The President does not make laws, change laws nor does the President, Executive Branch, change the Constitution of the USA.

Congress does if it passes the judgement of the Judicial Branch of our Government (the Supreme Court).

Stop trying to pump this crap if you are totally ignorant and never made it past the 6th grade in Civics. Maybe, they no longer teach it.

There is no reason any of us should fear our rights as Citizens will be affected by a Presidential Election.

The fear is brought about by those who want to profit from it.

Know your Congress person and don't automactically vote them in based upon their seniority.
lamarw is offline  
Old November 20, 2012, 05:05 AM   #99
Sparks1957
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 4, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 1,471
Thank you, lamarw. All lot of folks around here could stand to learn how how our government works, and what powers the branches of government do/don't have.
Sparks1957 is offline  
Old November 20, 2012, 08:13 AM   #100
Chaz88
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 4, 2010
Posts: 1,006
Quote:
Know your Congress person and don't automactically vote them in based upon their seniority.
That might be the best post in this thread. Every time I get into a debate over whatever president is in office I tell people that it would be better to change the 535 people in congress than to worry about the one in the White House.

I also read a report a few months ago that said around 75 percent of the people think congress is doing a bad job. It went on to say that around 52 percent of those people would vote for their congress person again. That makes it hard to change much.
__________________
Seams like once we the people give what, at the time, seams like a reasonable inch and "they" take the unreasonable mile we can only get that mile back one inch at a time.

No spelun and grammar is not my specialty. So please don't hurt my sensitive little feelings by teasing me about it.
Chaz88 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 09:47 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 0.15283 seconds with 7 queries