The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old January 11, 2013, 11:15 AM   #351
Ralgha
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 5, 2011
Location: Oregon
Posts: 107
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimDandy View Post
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.
Pretty sure Obama wanted 200 or 250 originally.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus that ate your iPhone.
Ralgha is offline  
Old January 11, 2013, 02:08 PM   #352
Hal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 7,435
Quote:
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
I see it just the opposite.

The longer things drag out, the more the chance that another "event" will occur.

Nothing has been done to alleviate any of the root causes for the shootings. If anything, conditions that cause them have gotten worse.

& I'm not talking about guns here,,,,,but,,,you can bet that the anti gun side is going to jump all over the sudden demand that's taken place...

If another event that matched Dec. 14th's scope of horror were to take place in the near future - you'd be lucky to be able to register a BB gun in this country...
Hal is offline  
Old February 19, 2013, 04:36 AM   #353
freedash22
Member
 
Join Date: July 2, 2012
Posts: 47
The temporary anti-gun sentiment

Looks like the anti-gun rally is losing steam:

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/18/op...rticle_sidebar

Here's to hoping calmer heads prevail over this anti-gun sentiment.
freedash22 is offline  
Old February 19, 2013, 08:52 AM   #354
coyota1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2008
Location: West Michigan
Posts: 661
I don't know about it loosing steam. Looks like the administration is going "state by state" manipulating state legislatures.
coyota1 is offline  
Old February 19, 2013, 10:41 AM   #355
Technosavant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 29, 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO area
Posts: 3,877
Oh, they're definitely losing steam.

Colorado is the only place outside of the usual anti-gun enclaves where they appear to be getting anything done. The President is one of the very few remaining federal level politicians still pushing for more gun control (and it appears that nobody in Congress is listening... bans are off the table there).

In the various states, while ban bills have been introduced, in the vast majority they have been stuffed into dark holes from which they shall not return. Moreover, the anti gun folks are showing themselves to have overreached- the confiscation bills in MO and MN that are dead in the water and the confiscation/unconstitutional search bill in WA that supposedly was put out there "in error."*

This particular set of battles in legislatures is in wind-down phase. If we keep the pressure on the anti-gun forces will get nothing. Then it's off to the courts to see if some of the recent legislation (such as in NY) will stand up to the new Heller based scrutiny. I rather wonder if they won't... if that is the case, then we may even see magazine and politically incorrect gun bans struck down nationwide.

*Error, sure. It's pretty clear these bills are written by outside lobbying groups and they got carried away with their wish lists. While those groups have their politicians willing to introduce bills, very few are willing to sign on to such things.
Technosavant is offline  
Old February 19, 2013, 11:15 AM   #356
coyota1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2008
Location: West Michigan
Posts: 661
Technosavant, I hope you are right, and I am wrong. NY, California, now Colorado... State by state.
coyota1 is offline  
Old February 19, 2013, 11:21 AM   #357
tulsamal
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 25, 2004
Location: Vinita, OK
Posts: 2,456
I agree that the anti's have lost the momentum.

But... we are a country of over 300 million. The bills are all written and the media groundwork has been laid. The other side can patiently wait for the next mass shooting. Could be a month or could be a year. But it is hard to argue there won't be one.... we better be ready.

I agree the AWB is dead at this point. I hope the magazine capacity bills are dead but something _could_ still happen there if we don't watch them.

And then there is the whole "universal background check" thing. Seems like they are in full court press mode on that one. I'm just hoping people like Sen Coburn are going to be able to deflect them into just improving reporting and the whole mental health thing. This one isn't over yet.

As far as the states go... well, I'm not totally against this sort of thing. I'm against the actual legislation but... I'm a lot happier when they do it state by state. Rather than having a large and intrusive Federal Government shoving it down our throats. Pro-gun people can control their states and the crazy people that want to live in the super high density population zones can have theirs. I'm sad for the pro-gun people that live in NY but I would rather see that outcome than a national law created to "help NYC and Chicago" that affects gun owners in Oklahoma.

And we all know it is easier to effect change at the state level. I can drive to OKC. I can actually talk to my state Reps and Senators. They come through my home town all the time. The Federal Government is much more insulated from public input.

Gregg
tulsamal is offline  
Old February 19, 2013, 11:54 AM   #358
Technosavant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 29, 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO area
Posts: 3,877
Quote:
And then there is the whole "universal background check" thing. Seems like they are in full court press mode on that one. I'm just hoping people like Sen Coburn are going to be able to deflect them into just improving reporting and the whole mental health thing. This one isn't over yet.
I really wonder if that isn't because they're determined to get SOMETHING, ANYTHING passed. They wanted a ban, magazine limits, background checks. They would have even gone for confiscation if they could have (the wish list bills now DOA in MO, MN, etc. show they tried). They wanted tons.

So far, with the exception of NY (already a morass of gun control) and CO (more and more overrun by folks intent on turning it into California 2: Electric Boogaloo), they've won nothing. Not one thing. And even in CO the limit is 15 rounds... not the ten they often try for and certainly not the seven the poor folks in NY had rammed down their throats.

So they want to come out with some kind of victory. Two months ago I was thinking that if we escaped with nothing more than background checks on all transfers, we got out of this storm in surprisingly good shape. I'm still thinking that may be the case, but then again, by no means do we even need to give on that... rather, we can even take part in that discussion and shape it if it can't be quashed.

Why did this happen? Is it because of the money involved, as the Chicago police commissioner claims? Hardly. It's because people like us contacted our legislators and made our wishes very clear. As said, that's easier to do on a more local basis... state by state action is much harder for the antis to fight since there's still not that many places amenable to their desires.

If we keep it up, we'll keep winning. This is the kind of groundswell that just didn't happen in 1994 (not until after the ban passed, that is). We're showing them that the election results of '94 were not a fluke. We're still here. We still care. And we're paying very close attention.
Technosavant is offline  
Old February 19, 2013, 12:20 PM   #359
coyota1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2008
Location: West Michigan
Posts: 661
It will be interesting to see what happens to the legislators in the states pushing for stricter gun control when election time comes. Hopefully a lot of the anti supporters will loose their seats, and send a message to the politicians similar to what happened when the Clinton ban was voted in.
coyota1 is offline  
Old February 19, 2013, 01:05 PM   #360
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,183
Quote:
Hopefully a lot of the anti supporters will loose their seats, and send a message to the politicians similar to what happened when the Clinton ban was voted in.
By then, the damage is done. In 1994, everybody ran around in circles and slapped each other on the back about how they'd contributed to some sort of revolution in Congress.

Yipee. Some folks finally got out and voted, but it was too late at that point. We still had the ban for another ten years.

We need to be proactive, not reactive.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old February 19, 2013, 01:21 PM   #361
coyota1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2008
Location: West Michigan
Posts: 661
Proactive yes. The Clinton ARB is one reason the one the reasons the Obama administration is running into resistance now.
coyota1 is offline  
Old February 19, 2013, 03:27 PM   #362
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,483
I wonder how much of this may actually be part of a strategy. It quickly became apparent that legislation could not be moved at the federal level before public support waned, but the states were a different story. There was suddenly an excuse to rush forward with new laws in confirmed anti-gun states and to make inroads in other, more gun-friendly states.

The national effort may be a diversion while our flanks are attacked in the states. More gun control IS being imposed, not nationally but on a large part of the population. Harsher restrictions in CA, NY, MA, MD, CO, and CT will cover 79 million people or 25% of the country's population.

One of the objectives of gun control is to make guns less common, more alien to the average person, and socially unacceptable. Further separating a quarter of the population from their gun rights sounds pretty successful in that regard.
gc70 is offline  
Old February 19, 2013, 03:34 PM   #363
coyota1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2008
Location: West Michigan
Posts: 661
Quote:
One of the objectives of gun control is to make guns less common, more alien to the average person, and socially unacceptable. Further separating a quarter of the population from their gun rights sounds pretty successful in that regard.
Socially unacceptable is the key phrase here. I live in a legally open carry state. Why doesn't anybody really open carry? It's socially unacceptable, not because it's illegal.
coyota1 is offline  
Old February 19, 2013, 04:14 PM   #364
Technosavant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 29, 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO area
Posts: 3,877
Quote:
One of the objectives of gun control is to make guns less common, more alien to the average person, and socially unacceptable. Further separating a quarter of the population from their gun rights sounds pretty successful in that regard.
I think you are very much correct.

Look at how much guns have been going mainstream over the last 4-5 years. Guns were removed from many Walmarts and then were brought back, this time with AR-15s. Gun shops have gone from the land o' stereotypes to places willingly visited by first time buyers. You no longer need to feel like a leper if you're into guns, in fact, you likely have found people who will happily discuss guns with you at work, church, or anywhere else. Moreover, the people buying guns are not just hunters and that crazy dude down the street, but they're people like soccer moms and grandmothers.

If they are to have any hope at all of getting new bans passed they HAVE to roll back this mainstreaming of firearms ownership. If they can shove us back in the closet they're halfway there.
Technosavant is offline  
Old February 19, 2013, 06:12 PM   #365
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,183
Quote:
It quickly became apparent that legislation could not be moved at the federal level before public support waned, but the states were a different story.
You're right. It appears that they're shifting the battleground to the states.

Of course, McDonald incorporated the Heller provisions against the states, so these laws are ripe fodder for a lawsuit. While it's little consolation to the residents of affected states in the immediate future, at least the damage will be relatively confined while we proceed with litigation.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old February 19, 2013, 06:37 PM   #366
HarrySchell
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 548
I think that is the strategy...states like CA do laws that clearly are outside and wait for a lawsuit, do a slow roll through the state judiciary system before it gets to the federal circuit, and in the meantime hope we all run out of money and time going from state to state, while they confiscate firearms and "lose" them, as Nagin did.

I might have this wrong, but it seems like the strategy is to take as much possible and make us bleed all the more to fight back state by state. Confiscate as much as they can and claim ineptitude or forgiveness when it turns out the arms have been destroyed one way or another.

Cynical. What a brave new world.
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will.
— Mark Twain
HarrySchell is offline  
Old February 19, 2013, 06:45 PM   #367
coyota1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2008
Location: West Michigan
Posts: 661
Quote:
If they are to have any hope at all of getting new bans passed they HAVE to roll back this mainstreaming of firearms ownership. If they can shove us back in the closet they're halfway there.
One more thing gun owners have going for them is there are more gun owners, due to the rise of concealed carry. There are more people these days who own a firearm for the express purpose of self defense, not just hunting/shooting sports.
coyota1 is offline  
Old February 20, 2013, 08:41 AM   #368
Kimio
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2011
Location: Utah
Posts: 882
Lets not forget that the gun community and shooting as a sport has risen in popularity due in part to the media. Shows like Top Shot and Sons of Guns certainly have been helping with piquing the interest of people more, not to mention video games as much as I'd hate to admit. For better or worse, recreational shooting has become more recognized as a sport and not just something you do for hunting or self defense.
Kimio is online now  
Old February 21, 2013, 02:27 AM   #369
freedash22
Member
 
Join Date: July 2, 2012
Posts: 47
How to make their plans backfire

This may be premature but I have to wonder, if they pass universal background checks that cover all forms of mental issues, even common ones (and this I oppose), shouldn't we ask for something in return? For example, you can give background checks to all gun buyers but if they pass, they can buy select-fire rifles and SMGs.

I know a lot of you will say that this is excessive and unfeasible, but I know for a fact that a select-fire rifle will not do any more harm than a semi-automatic in the hands of a proven responsible gun owner. I think this is fair. They get theirs, we get ours.

I am tired of having the anti-gun folks keep taking from us. They always reach for the low-hanging fruit and the next day they do it all over again.
freedash22 is offline  
Old February 21, 2013, 07:57 AM   #370
CowTowner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 17, 2007
Location: Cowtown of course!
Posts: 1,145
Quote:
For example, you can give background checks to all gun buyers but if they pass, they can buy select-fire rifles and SMGs.
Good idea in principal, but I'd suggest starting with low hanging fruit as well.
They get checks, we get the Hughes Amendment repealed.
__________________
NRA Chief Range Safety Officer, Home Firearm Safety and Pistol Instructor
"There are three classes of people: those who see, those who see when they are shown, those who do not see."
Leonardo da Vinci
CowTowner is offline  
Old February 21, 2013, 09:04 AM   #371
adamc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 3, 2013
Location: Stalingrad Connecticut
Posts: 216
Yup

Here in Connecticut WE are toast... The Legislature will soon roll out
the 'new' laws...done deal... the antis here will mop the floor..
2A is going bye bye here, and our Washington crowd is leading the parade...
Blumenthal didn't even reply to any correspondence.. Murphy did, with the the typical anti bs (40%, blah blah)
The locals from Hartford din't do much better...just a few responces thanking me for my letter
( {Read} We've already done the deals, so we don't want your input)

NONE have ever publicly supported 2A... So when the laws pass, and the rush is over, they can say '" we tried " to help,

I can't wait until the NEXT election

*** I hope I am Wrong ***
__________________
**** NRA Life Member *****

Connecticut was the Cradle of the Gun Industry, NOW it is just a Pine Box,
Courtesy of our Governor "Chairman MAO Malloy"
adamc is offline  
Old February 21, 2013, 09:45 AM   #372
coyota1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2008
Location: West Michigan
Posts: 661
Quote:
NONE have ever publicly supported 2A... So when the laws pass, and the rush is over, they can say '" we tried " to help,
It is of record, and will be of record as to how your politicians voted. It surely will get brought up when there election time comes. Here in Michigan, the only thing we have going for us is a republican governor. Detroit and smaller cities with the same kind of demographics will eventually prevail. The writing's on the wall.
coyota1 is offline  
Old February 21, 2013, 10:20 AM   #373
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,183
Quote:
For example, you can give background checks to all gun buyers but if they pass, they can buy select-fire rifles and SMGs.
First off, they would never agree to that. Second, we'd see the allowance for NFA items repealed down the road, while universal background checks remained in force. It's a losing proposition and such a deal only offers an illusion of safety.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old February 21, 2013, 10:50 AM   #374
MercyfulFate
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 2013
Posts: 138
The federal push means nothing to me because I live in Massachusetts, and it's already stricter than the fed proposals, and they're trying to pass even more insane stuff.

Forced liability insurance when no insurers will insure you, meaning you surrender your guns - law? Check.

Forced storage of "large capacity" weapons at ranges with no storage capacity? - Check

Restricting buying to 1 firearm per month? - Check!

On and on.
__________________
Massachusetts Native (Tough to be a gun owner!)

Owner of: S&W Model 10-5, Beretta 92fs and a Mossberg Maverick 88 "Security" Shotgun
MercyfulFate is offline  
Old February 21, 2013, 11:50 AM   #375
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,401
Quote:
I know a lot of you will say that this is excessive and unfeasible, but I know for a fact that a select-fire rifle will not do any more harm than a semi-automatic in the hands of a proven responsible gun owner. I think this is fair. They get theirs, we get ours.
Problem with that is, they think being able to hang onto 22LR bolt actions and 22 pistols just a little bit longer IS getting ours.

And we'd be better off demanding things like a National Carry Permit.

Second, the background check cannot cover "all forms" of mental illness. You still have to touch base with due process in some way or another- Adjudicated mentally deficient. A judge or panel has to say your mental illness is so bad you can't take care of yourself... either through a civil hearing, or a NG by Reason of Mental Disease or Defect non-conviction conviction. There was story in my local paper about a woman who was arrested with a gun, and had been in all sorts of trouble. She should never have had a gun. No one disputes this.

But the anti writing the story didn't make the connection that this woman hadn't had the due process take her right away. The background check didn't fail, and she didn't avoid it, the system failed to follow through enough to flag her. Charges were dropped when she plead Not Guilty by.. yadda yadda. So her plea didn't count. She'd been arrested for other things other times, but again charges were dropped... she had no criminal record and had never actually been adjudicated mentally deficient.
JimDandy 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 09:29 PM.


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 0.15217 seconds with 8 queries