The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old December 17, 2012, 11:21 AM   #51
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,700
The NSSF has made an attempt to portray these guns as the new sporting guns and Remington has specific models for that view.

The sporting use defense is risky, I think because:

a. Why can't you go hunting with a Ruger Model One? If you are competent that should work. If you want a semi - why not a 5 round magazine? You don't need 30.

b. Why can't you keep your hunting gun locked up at all times till you go hunting, etc.?

So I agree that Sen. Munchking doesn't know what he is talking about. I've taken my AR out in the field. But sports doesn't defend the RKBA. We could all be bow hunters.
__________________
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 December 17, 2012, 11:25 AM   #52
Nathan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 1, 2001
Posts: 1,961
This is a risky deal. They will get rich righties to buy in saying it will eliminate guns from desperate(poor under $300k /yr) criminals while protecting sportsmen(think H&H or Purdey pricing).

Any tax is infringement...any named ban is infringement...any additional requirement to buy is infringement.

Remember John Lott, statistician, tells us all mass shootings happen in "gun prohibited" areas...remember, the Oregan mall shooting tells us what happens with CCW thrown in the mix...


MORE GUNS = LESS CRIME
Nathan is offline  
Old December 17, 2012, 11:40 AM   #53
Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,700
As much as I support carry - Lott must be taken with a grain of salt about gun free zones. We've been down this road before.

Rampages depend on the shooter characteristic and we have plenty in zones with guns.

It is not the strongest argument.

The better argument is that in a gun free zone, you do not have the ability to defend yourself efficaciously.

You can be a human shield or charge waving your IPAD.

It's OREGON by the way! And the Tacoma mall carrier can trump the Oregon story if true. BE CAREFUL with cliched arguments!
__________________
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 December 17, 2012, 12:23 PM   #54
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 5,501
Quote:
Any tax is infringement...any named ban is infringement...
I'll agree with you on the latter, but the former is much more complicated.

Regarding bans, see my prior post; virtually anyone willing to do some research should realize that the main effect of the 94 AWB was to enrich those lucky enough to be in possession of large quantities of pre-ban items, while having little or no measurable effect on gun crime. That's not to say that those who supported the AWB wouldn't support the exact same legislation again, drawbacks and all, to appease their constituents. However, in order to be realistically effective, a revised AWB II would have to either ban simple possession of certain items, which is unlikely to survive a court challenge in a post-Heller environment, or it would have to proactively ban resale of the items, which is unlikely to survive court challenges for various other reasons, and IMHO is unlikely to pass in the first place because it would be so invasive and cumbersome to enforce.

However, the Supreme Court has generally upheld Congress' power to levy taxes in most cases. On one hand, excessively punitive and overly specific taxes have been disallowed on 1A grounds; see Minneapolis Star Tribune Company v. Commissioner. However, on the other hand, the Roberts court upheld an arguably very broad and invasive law* under the Taxing and Spending Clause in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. Furthermore, the NFA- while obnoxious, cumbersome, and arguably unconstitutional in some respects- is settled law.

My hunch is that an "NFA Lite" would be held as constitutional if (a) the taxes on commonly possessed items are reasonably low, at least to start, and (b) the tax collection method is sufficiently streamlined that the taxes could be readily collected on a retail level. It could also function as a back-door registration scheme under the guise of keeping tax records. Therein lies the danger.

*Please note: I do NOT intend to digress into discussing the PPACA here, and I feel that such a discussion would be inappropriate and irrelevant to the topic at hand; this case is simply cited as an example.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is offline  
Old December 17, 2012, 12:47 PM   #55
nate45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,746
Lets don't lose our grip on reality, based on some heated rhetoric. Politicians say things to appeal to their donors. All sides are guilty of this on a myriad of hot button issues, that will never become law.
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
(>_<)
nate45 is offline  
Old December 17, 2012, 12:52 PM   #56
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 1,653
Nate, I hope you are correct, but I am not confident that you are.
zukiphile is offline  
Old December 17, 2012, 01:46 PM   #57
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Time and delay is our best ally IMHO. Delay the bills and let the news cycle pass. I also think that in time we will see one of these mass shootings stopped by a CCW in a way that is hard for the media to ignore (Oregon) or water down (Appalachian State law school) and then the tide will turn. For now it will be hard to argue gun rights without appearing insensitive to the plight of the children. Using the argument that these shootings are just a part of american life won't get it either. We have to walk fine now as this incident is a possible game changer... to the bad.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old December 17, 2012, 03:00 PM   #58
nate45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 15, 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,746
Quote:
Nate, I hope you are correct, but I am not confident that you are.
I'm a big believer in a positive mental attitude and cognitive therapy. Negative thinking is never useful. It has nothing to do with ignoring reality, or being pollyannish either. It also isn't about not having contingency plans. It's about saving time, effort, and ill physical/mental effects.
__________________
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
(>_<)
nate45 is offline  
Old December 17, 2012, 04:17 PM   #59
Hiker 1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 7, 2011
Location: Colorado
Posts: 511
Yes, but could this be the ultimate “compromise” that is reached in Washington concerning the proposed AWB? This way everyone “wins” as the items are still available, but obviously heavily regulated.

Exactly. That way "no one loses their gun". They just have to go through a ton of paperwork and extra costs.

They'll probably grandfather current owners.
Hiker 1 is offline  
Old December 17, 2012, 05:04 PM   #60
bfskinnerpunk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2009
Posts: 201
So during the Clinton ban, how did "assault" rifle owners sell the firearms? Could they sell person to person, or did the transaction have to be documented?
bfskinnerpunk is offline  
Old December 17, 2012, 06:14 PM   #61
SIGSHR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 13, 2005
Posts: 3,078
The main motive for a "ban" is spite and harassment. They know that gun owners will not meekly hand them in, but they won't be able to take them to the range or even discuss them, since you're not sure who may rat you out.
SIGSHR is offline  
Old December 17, 2012, 06:51 PM   #62
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,360
Quote:
So during the Clinton ban, how did "assault" rifle owners sell the firearms?
The law prohibited the manufacture or sale of new "assault" weapons made after the date of enactment. Guns already in circulation were not affected and could be bought and sold.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old December 17, 2012, 06:56 PM   #63
coyota1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2008
Location: West Michigan
Posts: 661
The original ban was such a farce. It would be like saying; crack cocaine is illegal, but the stuff in circulation is grandfathered in. Then high cap mags must not be that dangerous, just new ones.
coyota1 is offline  
Old December 17, 2012, 07:40 PM   #64
Warrior1256
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 11, 2012
Location: Louisville, Ky.
Posts: 156
I suggest we all give an emergency donation to the pro-gun organization of your choice immediately. Gun owners are going to be catching it heavy for awhile.
Warrior1256 is offline  
Old December 17, 2012, 07:43 PM   #65
bfskinnerpunk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2009
Posts: 201
I can tolerate a Clinton-style ban so long as we can circulate the existing ones.

I'm talking like this because I predict that gun rights are really in for trouble. We've had three shootings in fairly quick succession...and all with presidential attention.

The political winds are too strong.

If we can get away with a Clinton ban, I would call that "lucky" at this point.
bfskinnerpunk is offline  
Old December 17, 2012, 07:53 PM   #66
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,360
Quote:
I can tolerate a Clinton-style ban so long as we can circulate the existing ones.
So, when the magazines for your guns are $150, that'll be tolerable? How about $2000 for a new upper for your AR? Because that's what's going to happen.

Some manufacturers will go out of business, and others will have to raise prices on their non-banned wares to make ends meet. Things will be rough across the board.

What's more, if they get away with one ban, you can certainly expect others to follow.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old December 17, 2012, 07:58 PM   #67
Davey
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 2, 2010
Location: Not far enough from Chicago
Posts: 369
"I can tolerate a Clinton-style ban so long as we can circulate the existing ones."

This is what gets us into trouble. Next year they will just want to ban something else. It will never end. We have to fight everything they throw at us to the bitter end.

I'd rather we focus on enforcing existing laws. Less plea deals. Get mentally unhealthy people the help they need.
Davey is offline  
Old December 17, 2012, 08:01 PM   #68
BarryLee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 29, 2010
Location: The ATL (OTP)
Posts: 2,743
Quote:
What's more, if they get away with one ban, you can certainly expect others to follow.
This is the bigger issue that gets overlooked by the public. Many of the hardcore anti-gun crowd have a goal of eliminating civilian ownership of firearms. They see each law, fee, tax or ban as just one more step toward their ultimate goal. No I don’t think I’m paranoid I heard them state just this on the show Fresh Air on NPR one afternoon.
__________________
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 offline  
Old December 17, 2012, 08:33 PM   #69
bfskinnerpunk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2009
Posts: 201
Oh, I think gun folks are screwed.

With that, I am speaking of levels of being screwed. So, if they ban all "assault" rifles and prohibit the sale of them from person-to-person.... that's bad.... if they ban them and then make us all register what we have for a fee, that's bad.... and if they ban them and have us turn them in, that's even worse.

Perhaps I am being cynical, but I would say that we are getting off light to have a Clinton type ban.

I understand the slippery slope. We've been riding that slope for decades now and, now that we have a full generation of people who see government as parent, it is getting more slippery.
bfskinnerpunk is offline  
Old December 17, 2012, 08:36 PM   #70
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,360
Quote:
Oh, I think gun folks are screwed.
We are if we allow ourselves to be.

I remember the leadup to the 1994 ban all too well. I worked a phone bank for the NRA, and everyone I called yelled at me for interrupting their dinner or the Twin Peaks marathon. We couldn't get anyone mobilized because of fatalism and/or apathy.

Things are a little different now, and we can make them very different by getting in touch with our legislators.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old December 17, 2012, 08:51 PM   #71
bfskinnerpunk
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2009
Posts: 201
Twin Peaks marathon! (sorry for the aside)

I think the Twin Peaks TV show was on during the very late 80's... and maybe 1990. Perhaps they brought it back as a marathon in '94.

At the time, I had no awareness of guns at all. I first started considering gun ownership in 2009.

I donate to the NRA with every purchase, I'm a registered libertarian

The re-election of Obama reflects the changing demographics of America. It ain't pretty.
bfskinnerpunk is offline  
Old December 17, 2012, 09:50 PM   #72
coyota1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2008
Location: West Michigan
Posts: 661
Yes the demographics are shifting away from the traditional gun owner. There are more ignorant people that are brainwashed than in the 90's. Paradoxically, there are more CCW's than earlier. This may be in our favor.
coyota1 is offline  
Old December 17, 2012, 10:51 PM   #73
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,488
Quote:
Originally Posted by coyota1
Yes the demographics are shifting away from the traditional gun owner.
Yes, demographics have shifted away from traditional gun owners - and thank goodness they have.

40 years ago, the typical gun owner was probably a hunter and typical guns were bolt-action or lever-action rifles, pump shotguns, and maybe a revolver as a nightstand gun. We would be in serious trouble if gun rights depended on the steadily declining number of hunters in our country.

Luckily, the demographics of gun ownership have changed dramatically in the last 40 years. The growth in recreational shooters and people who own guns for self defense have more than offset the losses in hunters. And those new demographic groups continue to grow at an increasing rate.

The changes in demographics of gun ownership are also important in defeating any major new gun control laws. Even in 1994, a large percentage of the "traditional" gun owners did not care whether the AWB passed because it did not affect the guns they owned. Today, a very substantially larger portion of the firearms community owns guns that would be affected by a 1994-style AWB.

Consider two facts: over 8 million Floridians voted in the 2012 general election; Florida is very near (possibly this week) reaching its one-millionth outstanding concealed carry license. Forgetting all other gun owners in Florida, just the concealed carry license holders in that state are a very potent voting bloc that Florida politicians will not ignore.
gc70 is offline  
Old December 17, 2012, 11:05 PM   #74
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,360
Quote:
Luckily, the demographics of gun ownership have changed dramatically in the last 40 years.
Heck, they've changed in the last 20 years. I remember when you had to join a club if you wanted to shoot. Everybody had matching plaid vests. It was so adorable. Guns were tools for recreation and hunting.

That was the culture, and many of them saw no loss in the AWB. At least not until they decided to buy a pistol and realized they were limited to 10-round magazines. Then they'd gripe at me for not having done enough to stop it. Yeesh.

Today's gun owners are different. Most are very cognizant of the idea behind the 2nd Amendment. For them, guns can be tools for recreation and hunting, but they're also important tools for self-defense. While most might not be opposed to things like background checks, they are vehemently opposed to bans.

Today's gun owner is more likely to take offense to further restrictions, and is more vocal. Hopefully, some percentage of that will translate to action.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old December 17, 2012, 11:18 PM   #75
Hog Red
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 9, 2010
Posts: 124
wasn't the Clinton AWB the result of the California school play yard where some whackjob used an AK47? This deal is gonna stick just because young kids were involved. Dont know what will happen but there will be some type of executive order or congress will cave in to public pressure and allow something thru to save face.
Hog Red 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 01:47 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 0.15618 seconds with 8 queries