Have The Gun Control Agenda Advocates Given Up? (For Now)

[5whiskey]

No, this doesn't even reference the results of our recent election. Though, since I did bring that up... I'm not prepared to announce the Victor of said election to exactly be the 2A chosen one. I still remember the Bump Stock ban (and I still have no skin in that game, or any desire for a bump stock, other than the ban was an illegal infringement regardless of my disdain for bump stocks).

No, I'm talking about the anointed nominee for the political party who more often than not wants to add more "common sense" gun infringe... err I mean control laws. In the runup to the election major media, who rarely even tries to portray a facade of impartiality in their disdain of the second amendment, failed to ask this nominee any hard questions about firearms or stances on gun control. In fact, the only times it was brought up, said nominee professed to owning a Glock and informed Oprah Winfrey that "if someone breaks in my house they're getting shot."

With so many new gun owners since the pandemic, I believe there has been a major shift. It appears that those who would impose gun control realizes that it is a losing proposition right now, so they choose to not reference it or even imply that they are gun-friendly fellow gun owners. How long can this last? It appears we aren't actively on the defense against gun control for now... so how do we shore up defenses for any future fights? Is there any path for an offensive, say (as mentioned in another thread) a repeal of the post 86 ban in the Hughes amendment? Or a revival of the hearing protection act? Ensuring that appellate courts remain true to constitutional norms for many year to come is probably a good idea as well.


What do you think, have we beaten gun control advocates back considerably in the past few years?


*I worked hard to word this as non-partisan as possible other than narrowly focusing on gun control politics, please consider doing the same.

[44 AMP]

Given up? I highly doubt it. Being quiet for a while, more likely.

Note the timing of various gun control drives over the past 30 years. Since 94 they don't push gun control in a major election year. It is an issue that works against them in an election year. Passing the 94 AWB in the summer that year resulted in the party that had controlled Congress for 40 years losing their majority that November.

The gun control advocates got real quiet after 9/11 and stayed that way for several years. Eventually, they came back to publicly pushing their agenda again.

It may be that since the main power players in their movement are getting old, and have failed in many ways in recent years, they may just decide to sit back, and let the upcoming generation take up their torch.

I believe this is a temporary respite, they will be back, the question is, when they do, will they gain any significant traction??

[JohnKSa]

They will never give up.

The people who want to take other people's rights away will NEVER give up. The fight to retain rights never ends unless those fighting for their rights suffer a total loss. Otherwise the fight goes on.

[Tom Servo]

We haven't heard much lately for a couple of reasons, mostly political.

First off, gun control just doesn't poll at the top of the list for voters' priorities. It's an election year, so politicians are going to focus on what gets them to win. Right now, they're not going to waste time on what they see as a second-tier issue.

Second, the gun-control lobby knows that. So they'll keep their powder dry until they can get their agenda on the news again.

I give it about a year or so before we start hearing about it again.

[gwpercle]

Not On Your Life !

They Never Give Up ... I've been watching this since 1960 , when I joined the NRA ...

They Never Stop , They Never Quit !

The end goal is to disarm the American People ...

Unarmed men are easier to controll ... Armed Men will fight for their freedom .
Gary

[FITASC]

They are currently regrouping to figure out what they can do during the next four years

[s3779m]

IMHO, gun control was/is just a way to push a liberal agenda, abortion has taken it's place for the time being. Add to that opinion, crime is bad and it is worse in liberal hell holes. Not exactly the right time or place to preach gun control and take away a citizens right to defend himself. The push for gun control will be back, I do believe it is a long range plan, but there are lots of wounds to heal right now.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by 5Whiskey

With so many new gun owners since the pandemic, I believe there has been a major shift.

You aren't wrong about how much the issue has shifted, but that is very far from proponents of greater control having given up.

Ultimately, you are dealing with evergreen features of human nature. If a price seems high, or something didn't get ordered that someone would like to have seen done, or something was done that someone didn't like, or there was a traffic accident in which someone's blood alcohol wasn't zero or there is a shooting, or says something someone doesn't like, or goes to a different church, or even runs for federal office after a riot ... some people with poor foresight will demand a law that would have "outlawed" the result they didn't want to see.

As long as privately held firearms are useful to or enjoyed by individuals, there will be voters who are peeved by that and who will support candidates, judges and justices who would limit that.

I commend your recognition of the progress of the last couple of decades. I do not share an optimism that more intrusive gun regs can be relegated to history like slavery or prohibition.

[FITASC]

intrusive gun regs can be relegated to history like slavery or prohibition.

Well, since slavery is rampant all over the world, including here) neither will ever be relegated to the history books. As we have seen how emotionally unbalanced some folks are when they do not get their way, the gun control groups will continue in their Quixotic quest.

[Skans]

Don't forget, it was Desantis that made Echo and Binary triggers unlawful to be sold in Florida.

[FITASC]

And it was Rick Scott who made it mandatory for a 3-day waiting list, even for rifles.

[heyjoe]

Anecdotally, I don't have objective numbers, I have talked to, run into, heard of, read of citizens on the left are currently buying firearms in increasing numbers. it is a hot topic of discussion on the left right now.

[Paul B.]

"Given up? I highly doubt it. Being quiet for a while, more likely."

It looks like they may have already started. I just had a phone call from someone who said he was from the NRA anf was warning about a new gun control bill having to with regulating ammo. I had a bad connection with lots of static so missed much of what he said bit it was something about like California's background checks for ammo, limiting to 100 round, whether for a purchase of a year I couldn't make out. I had to tell the guy twice that I couldn't understand what he was saying due to static on the line so I Finally just hung up on him.
Whether he was a fake deal or actually speaking for the NRA I don't know but if it's real, looks like we're gonna have to put up with their BS some more.
Paul B.

[44 AMP]

I believe what you will see, once then get over being stunned at the loss that they simply refused to accept as a possibility, will be on the state level in the usual locations.

Remember its not just the Presidency alone that they lost, they lost a lot of their congressional power as well.

I have talked to, run into, heard of, read of citizens on the left are currently buying firearms in increasing numbers. it is a hot topic of discussion on the left right now.

That might be because some of them are finally realizing that the people their policies have not put in jail or kept them there when they did, do not limit their attacks to just political conservatives.

And do be aware of the elitist mindset which is very prevalent among those people, that THEY should be able to have a gun, but no one else should be allowed to....

I recall a certain political player who was a major force in getting San Francisco to ban handguns (later overturned) who made a big deal of "turning in her pistol" under the new law...

And, she did just that, turned in A pistol registered to her...scored political points doing so, until one of those pesky "the truth" reporter types filed a freedom of information request and made it public, that she had TWO (2) pistols registered to her and only turned in ONE of them.

This is the kind of thing to watch for, those "gun owners" who are actively working for gun control for EVERYONE ELSE while they and their "fellow travelers" get to have their own.

[jmhyer]

"...I have talked to, run into, heard of, read of citizens on the left are currently buying firearms in increasing numbers."

Of course they are. How else are they going to protect and defend themselves when Trump's people come to take them away to internment camps?

------ Please read heavy dose of sarcasm.

[5whiskey]

I believe what you will see, once then get over being stunned at the loss that they simply refused to accept as a possibility, will be on the state level in the usual locations.

Yes! That is a great discussion point. There have been many state and national wins for 2A rights, but there have been a few state losses. The reference to ammo limits, etc, in CA is a good example. They, as in the Democratic party as a whole, probably have gun control at the absolute back of their mind right now. Well, perhaps other than some state restrictions. I think "they" have much bigger fish to fry and a lot of other soul searching to do right now, but that delves into politics not related to gun control.

I know there's danger in reading too deep into the fact that mainstream media and democrats have avoided discussing gun control like the black plague for the last year+. It is a loser issue, I think this is generally recognized, and it was shelved even for discussion in hope of winning the election. I do understand that doesn't mean that it's no longer a goal, and that gun control advocates are biding time until public sentiment (which is, in fact, quite fickle on some GC topics) comes around again... likely spurred on by a tragic high profile event.

[pete2]

They will never give up. It occurs to me that Blue States are bearing down on guns, semi auto rifles, magazines, I don't know what else. If you live in a certain blue state you cannot buy certain legal guns and magazines. The fed is allowing them to ban firearms. Legal firearms. I'm not talking about machineguns and rocket launchers altho I think the 2nd does allow them. Chipping away at your rights, bit by bit.

[Skans]

Originally Posted by jmhyer

"...I have talked to, run into, heard of, read of citizens on the left are currently buying firearms in increasing numbers."

Of course they are. How else are they going to protect and defend themselves when Trump's people come to take them away to internment camps?

------ Please read heavy dose of sarcasm.

If I had a far-left girlfriend or wife, I would pitch it that way to her so that I could get a "hall pass" go get an AR-15! "Well, if MAGAs are armed to the teeth, WE BETTER GET ONE JUST TO BE SAFE, I'm just thinking of you cupcake"

Truth be told, I bet there are a lot of people on the left that would just love to go out and buy their first firearm.

[Paul B.]

I received this as an E-mail yesterday and while I realize they're trying to raise money.what if it is true that the current regime just may try such a ploy? I didn't cut and paste the whole thing as much was repetitive but this conveys the gist of the message. It certainly would not surprise me if they did plan to do this as I trust them about as far as I can pick up and throw a Mack truck and trailer.
Paul B.

Thu, Nov 14 at 7:13 AM
National Association for Gun Rights

Paul,

Not even ONE DAY into the “Lame Duck” Congress, and Democrats are already coming after the Second Amendment.

Image 1

Yesterday, while Senate Republicans were busy electing a new leader, Senate Democrats held a SECRET GUN CONTROL HEARING in the Senate Judiciary Committee – which is still led by gun-grabber Dick Durbin – to attack the Second Amendment before Joe Biden’s term expires in January.

>>> FIGHT BACK NOW <<<

In this hearing, they demonized common firearm accessories like bump stocks and pistol braces, which both have been deemed legal to own by the Courts.

They proceeded to trot out staffers from GIFFORDS and other radical anti-gun organizations who validated their flawed and debunked opinions like “bump stocks are machine guns.”

This underscores exactly what we’ve been warning you about: Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer are looking to empty the clip on our Second Amendment freedoms in their final days in power.

They’re seeking to CODIFY JOE BIDEN’S GUN CONTROL EXECUTIVE ACTIONS before he leaves office.

The fact of the matter is we have a chance to make SERIOUS progress in rolling back Joe Biden’s anti-gun regulations when the new Congress convenes in January.

But... we have to make it there, first.

We have to spend these final months of the Biden administration fighting him to the bitter end. Because he’s a man that’s got nothing to lose.

[44 AMP]

Truth be told, I bet there are a lot of people on the left that would just love to go out and buy their first firearm.

There is nothing stopping anyone (who is not a legally prohibited person) from buying firearms under existing law. One's political inclinations are a personal matter, not any kind of legal impediment to firearms purchase.

IF there are people on the left that want to buy a gun, the only thing stopping them is their own personal inhibitions.

If you live in a certain blue state you cannot buy certain legal guns and magazines. The fed is allowing them to ban firearms. Legal firearms.

They are "allowing" it, because that is the way our system is set up to work. Anything can be written and passed into law, and IS the law, until a court rules otherwise. For this to happen, there must be a case brought, by people with legal standing in that jurisdiction, and some harm, or potential harm must be shown to the court's satisfaction.

It's done on a case by case, law by law basis. The Fed system, including all the courts cannot and does not "prejudge" laws, they only rule on laws after they become laws and a court case against the law comes before them.

When that does happen, the courts do not rule on whether or not the law is a good or a bad idea, or even if it makes sense or not, only on whether or not it is allowable under the Constitution, or not. Placing an "undue burden" on the exercise of our rights is not allowed, but its up to the courts to decide what constitutes an "undue burden" in the eyes of the law.

The Bruen ruling is a huge change, setting up a strict framework for evaluation of gun control laws, but such laws ARE the law, and will remain the law, until/unless a case challenging them, each, individually, comes before the courts to be ruled on.

[NJgunowner]

They haven't given up, they are just reloading... but they limited their magazines so much it's just taking a while.

[44 AMP]

Until the new administration takes office and settles in, the gun control advocates are unsure of what they can accomplish. Once they know what is, and isn't possible they will go back to pushing their agenda where and as they can.

We are at an unusual point in our politics, keep plenty of popcorn handy and watch the show.

[Metal god]

Haha apparently some of you live in free states cus here in CA it’s full steam ahead . Gun control slowing down HA !

[44 AMP]

Is there any idiotic idea that isn't being pushed by someone in California (in govt or out)???

CA isn't alone in that, but it seems to be the most ....obvious...