What do you predict will happen on the Federal level?

[ATN082268]

What do you predict will happen on the Federal level? (Choose all that apply)

[JimmyR]

None of the above.

[Don P]

Talk about poking a big hole in the hornets nest
All the above is poppy-cock, just my .02 worth

[Ben Towe]

I would say none of the above. They couldn't get a bill through the Senate at the height of the hysteria, and I don't see them getting one through in the foreseeable future. No one wants to commit political suicide.

[thallub]

None of the above.

[Spats McGee]

In what time frame?

[Grizz12]

they will regulate (executive orders) where they cannot not legislate

[Glenn E. Meyer]

As Spats said - this poll has real little validity due to time scale vagueness, a set of questions that have no real alternatives except to be scared.

I really don't see the use of continuing it. But I won't close it. Someone might suggest a realistic approach and discussion of factors that would influence federal gun legislation and/or executive orders.

[ken p.]

They will put a tax on ammo and guns that will be so stupid people will not be able to afford to shoot. I don't think they will repeal the 2nd adm. to many people want it and they are afraid to mess with it for fear of not getting elected or re-elected

[CowTowner]

None of the above. At least as they are written.
It is possible the BATFE will be "encouraged" to exercise its ability to change the rules about sales and reporting by the DOJ or POTUS.
We know that type of action will automatically cause the federal court system to be engaged. We've seen it before with the rifle reporting in the border states.
But I don't see any elected officials at the federal level doing much more than that.
That said, having POTUS publically "encourage" states to enact legislative changes could be a very real possiblity.
Just more reason to make sure you get out and vote.

[Lt. Skrumpledonk Ret]

I'm of two minds on this. Some days I think the future is bleak, but other days I put stock in the failed post-Newtown gun-grabbers agenda, the recalled legislators in Colorado, the Illinois concealed carry law, amongst many others.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by CowTowner

None of the above. At least as they are written.

+1.

Originally Posted by CowTowner

It is possible the BATFE will be "encouraged" to exercise its ability to change the rules about sales and reporting by the DOJ or POTUS... That said, having POTUS publically "encourage" states to enact legislative changes could be a very real possiblity.

Agreed. I also expect another push to enact UBC's, with another badly written and overbroad Senate bill. It will fail, and its sponsors will secretly expect this ahead of time, because its real and unstated purpose is to be used as a club to beat their opponents with during the next election cycle.

[glh17]

I'd be surprised if any of that occurred in the near future. Of course, there may be some proposals but I don't see any of the things mentioned passing.

At most, there might be some enhanced background checks with an emphasis on mental health, but I'm not sure anything beyond the current restriction is very practical. Outside of a handful of states and few congressional districts in gun favorable states there isn't alot of support for stronger gun control. That doesn't mean that it will be easy to repeal existing restrictions. Only that it will be difficult to get more restrictions at the federal level.

[BobCat45]

I have to agree with Lt. Skrumpledonk Ret - two minds.

My first reaction was, they will raise taxes and fees to absurd levels to discourage what they cannot outlaw. They'll demonize guns like they did tobacco, and people will get brainwashed and go along.

But I'm reminded of my bother's response to me, when I expressed great anxiety in about 1996 in the wake of the 1994 AWB and hysteria.

He said (not an exact quote but as close as I recall), "Look, we both have more guns and better guns than we did twenty yeas ago. We have concealed carry licenses, which was impossible then. Take a deep breath!"

I've watched the gun grabbers since the early 1970s. The pendulum swings. Illinois (my home state, and a good place to be "from") was the last holdout on concealed carry - now at least theoretically possible in all 50 states. It may swing toward more restrictions - but I do not think the American people are wiling to give up the right and means of self defense.

[WardenWolf]

I predict their primary tactic will be to increase the range of disqualifiers, particularly on the mental health front. I expect they will try to get automatic disqualification upon the diagnosis of any of various conditions, and mandatory reporting from doctors of these diagnoses. Diagnosed with depression? Disqualified for life, with no hope of appeal.

[Tom Servo]

What do you predict will happen on the Federal level?

Short answer: whatever we allow to happen.

If gun owners take the issue seriously, and if they get involved on the local and state level, we have the numbers and the clout to stop just about anything.

[TXAZ]

As thallub said, none of the above. All sides will more or less hold their positions. Although some believe the gun grabbers will prevail, and we've seen (IMHO) significant abuse of Executive Orders and circumvention of constitutional rights attempting to round up weapons, DC is a pendulum, and it appears to be moving back toward center after 5 failed years.

The biggest likely change, if any, will be nada.

[raimius]

If we take losses, I expect them more from the judiciary doing the 2nd Amendment Two-step or "intermediate" rational-basis and accepting whatever the state argues as a legitimate reason. Also, state-level losses like NY "SAFE" (puke) are likely if we get another media-frenzy.

That said, there are a few in the judicial system who are either supporters or at least willing to apply intermediate or strict scrutiny, even if they don't like it.

Also, quite a few states are friendly to apathetic with legislation.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I think that is on the money.

All ready anti states will proceed with more and stricter legislation.

If the antigun major party has control of White House and legislature - they will attempt new bans, etc. It will depend if their majority is filibuster resistant.

If the so-called progun party gets in - they may not pass new restrictions but will do nothing proactive to expand rights. They may go with new restrictions if some tragedy moves them to pander.

On the SCOTUS level - wily old Bird Scalia did his clucking and laid the two eggs - one seemed to have attached positively in IL. The other hatched out reasonable restrictions across the country and anti states will run with that bird. The SCOTUS will not take new cases that might strengthen rights and those state laws will stand.

This is worth what you paid for it. The real action will be on the state levels.

[gc70]

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

On the SCOTUS level - wily old Bird Scalia did his clucking and laid the two eggs - one seemed to have attached positively in IL. The other hatched out reasonable restrictions across the country and anti states will run with that bird. The SCOTUS will not take new cases that might strengthen rights and those state laws will stand.

McDonald following close on the heels of Heller was predictable; Heller did not pose or answer the question, but whether a newly-recognized individual right applied to the states was too obvious a question to not answer quickly.

We did not receive, nor should be have expected, sweeping and comprehensive rulings from a minimalist Court. However, we already see the lower courts sorting through the implications of Heller and McDonald. Some courts are just putting lipstick on the pig of rational basis and calling it a day, but other courts are doing thoughtful analyses and developing standards.

I believe the Supreme Court will not take another mainstream 2A case for some time, not because the Justices do not want to deal with the issues, but to allow time for circuit splits to become more numerous and for the issues involved to become better defined.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I don't make excuses for Scalia - with no offense. I think (and I'm not a constitutional expert) that the decisions went too far in allowing restrictions. They could have hushed up about that. Maybe it was necessary to get votes but I can't tell you that.

Here's another example of what frustrates me:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...n-control-law/

I can't see the SCOTUS dealing with such crap for years and years. This one says that the CT laws don't affect self-defense. That's in line with reasonable restrictions. A shotgun and a SW Model 10 would handle most incidents so that is all you should be able to get?

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

The real action will be on the state levels.

Due to continuing partisan gridlock at the federal level, I see state action in response to federal inaction as the "New Normal" when it comes to many contentious issues- including but not limited to gun rights.

[2ndsojourn]

From carguychris:
"I see state action in response to federal inaction as the "New Normal".... "

Not to mince words but, I don't see it as 'inaction'. At the federal level, they majority voted a resounding 'NO'. But you're right, the states whose politicians just don't get it will jump on the over-reaching bandwagon.

[leadcounsel]

Complete repeal would require near unanimous anti-gun House, Senate, President, and Scotus all at the same time. Extraordinarily unlikely. And it would almost certainly result in significant civil unrest and revolution with huge sections of the population in violent revolt, and states defecting from the union. Never going to happen.

Overturning Heller and McDonald is difficult. However, an anti-gun SCOTUS could hear and vote anti-gun in future cases, with stronger anti-gun language, and say they were wrong in Heller, et al. Unlikely but quite possible.

However, the harassing nature of gun grabbers, with incremental attacks, will continue unless gun owners unit and go on the offensive by passing laws preventing it. Taxes, restrictions on locations to carry, 'gotcha' laws, expanding "Lautenberg" style laws to create larger groups of prohibited persons, making it more difficult for gun owners and gun shops, smaller magazines, banning the use of lead, increasing costs of ownership and target shooting, eliminating shooting ranges, etc.

Their goal is to reduce guns in each household, from generation to generation.

[TDL]

Glenn E. Meyer
Staff
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 15,012

I think that is on the money.

I agree with all of the listed issues over the next 25 years, except repeal of the second. Repeal of the second is not needed, only a ruling overturning Heller on individual rights. That is not as hard as many people imagine/hope.


I think if you look at this on the level of cultural change; paternalistic government is advancing in all western democracies, including in the US at local state and federal levels -- and so is cultural acceptance of that paternalism.

You will see more microstamping requirements (next will be NY and Md) along with pushes for insurance and smart guns. these will all add costs.

The prognosis on the Supreme court is worse than dire. Actuary tables show we will likely lose at least two court seats, over the next seven years.

I would add:
Major success in reducing gun ranges in every dense populated state.

Continued successful marginalization of gun owners as inherently socially problematic. The pasting the NRA is taking is sticking. yes they got a million new paid members, but the fact that some 55 to 75 million other gun owners wont support them due those owners ignorance on how things work in DC, is sad commentary.